-3
[J'A"0 8M112-MIU TELEVISION
This is Where I Caine In
By STUART HOOD
BEING heartily tired of seeing Wilder bull- frogging across the screen, of his frigid wife and glum mistress, and of all the thoroughly nasty people with whom he consorts, I cannot find it in me to regret that The Power Game has fallen victim to election fever. I only hope that, in their natural state of political sensitivity, the television organisations are not going to rush to extremes of caution; for at the last election certain advances were made towards greater freedom. Rediffusion, looking back over 'its coverage of the campaign, which—like the BBC's —was firmly based on news values, summed it up thus: 'The parties' control of what was to appear on the screen, except as far as the party political broadcasts were concerned, was more an aspiration than a reality.'
To judge by the alacrity with which, on Monday night, all three party leaders declared themselves prepared to take part in confronta- tions on television, we may be about to see a change of heart on the part of the politicians. Last time the broadcasters offered to provide facilities for confrontations. Each party said' it was willing to take part but none decided to go as far as actually accept the offer. The reasons adduced were the weight of political broadcasting during the pre-election period, the inappropriate- ness of presidential-type programmes, and the complication of maintaining a correct balance between the parties. In spite of this coyness one confrontation did take place. In an edition of This Week devoted to the theme of housing and land control the Minister of Housing and the Labour Shadow Minister met in open debate. The result was lively, evenly balanced discussion of an important election issue. The following week the programme invited the Minister of Defence to debate with Mr. Healey, who pro- visionally agreed. The Conservative Central Office, on Mr. Thorneycroft's behalf, declined. In so doing it was no doubt influenced by tactical decisions—as it had every right to be; for there is no power whereby politicians may be, as it were, subpoenaed into appearing before the cameras. If this time they have changed their minds it must be because they think there will be something in it for Joe—by which I do not necessarily mean Mr. Grimond.
Unfortunately since Monday they seem to have had second thoughts–It is like a gang of small boys" arranging a game. A will play with B but not with C, and so on through our threefold per- mutation. One can see the big boys' point. If they accept Jo—by whom this time I do mean Mr. Grimond—he will have two shots to their one.
But it is a pity that while they were about it the politicians did not have second thoughts about the party political broadcasts—thirteen of them between dissolution and polling day. Sober re- search reveals that many viewers simply turn off the sound when a PPB comes on the air. No wonder. But PPBs are with us once more, although from most points of view they are con- traproducente—for they are not only boring in themselves; by crowding the schedules they make it more difficult to find room for good journalistic coverage—like 'Monday's programmes on either channel, in which all three leaders showed they could quite easily look after themselves under tough questioning. The difference between a real situation, a real cross-examination by Robin Day or Alastair Burnett or George flitch, and one of the put-up jobs in a PPB is total. The viewer feels it, and reacts unfavourably. The PPBs bring politics and politicians into disrepute.
'What the broadcasters strive towards is more freedom tempered by responsibility. Their aspirations in this direction are limited by the fact that the Representation of the People Act (1948) has still not been amended and still does not acknowledge the existence of radio and tele- vision as media with claims to be treated on an equal footing with the press. This means, for instance, that if one wishes to discuss a key constituency in which there is perhaps a three- cornered fight complicated by a fourth lunatic candidate, one has to include all candidates on conditions of absolute parity with their rivals, irrespective of their political importance or news value--which television reporters are just as capable of judging as their press colleagues—and that, moreover, by refusing to appear in the programme, one candidate can force the others to back down. Admittedly the failure of C. M. Grieve's appeal to the Election Court—based on Sir Alec's appearances in PPBs—has gone a little way to clearing the air; but broadcasters are still beset with uncertainties and counsels of caution from their legal advisers. Since no one wishes to be the instrument of rendering any candidate's election null and void, the effect is inhibiting. Whoever wins—as the best party no doubt will—let us hope that they find it possible to squeeze time out of their parliamentary pro- gramme to amend the Act.
By so doing they will render television con- siderable service—which is more than can be expected if the new government takes up the extraordinary proposals for a University of the Air put forward in the recent White Paper by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This sentimental scheme—a hangover from the founding days of the WEA—seriously suggests that, in a country where the two-set family is the exception, large numbers of people are going to opt for calculus when the rest of the family is screaming for The Man from UNCLE or The Avengers—that, moreover, this situation is to go on for four years although it 'could be spread over five years or more.' Fall-out does not seem to trouble the committee which hatched the scheme; it cheerfully assumes 'that a relatively small proportion of students would complete a full degree course.' It shows every sign of being the most expensive way of producing autodidacts yet conceived. There is talk of time being taken out of BBC-2 at peak viewing time to accommo- date courses administered by the Vice-Chancellor of the Air, whom one can only think of as a kind of Prospero. This, as the saying goes, is- where I came in—or rather got out; for it was the BBC's supineness in dealing with pressures from the educational lobby that made me decide to leave the Corporation. I shall be interested to
see how it reacts this time. •
Previous page
