Television
Rough ride
Wendy Cope
S everal people tell me that my counter- part in the New Statesman, Hugo Williams, has been under attack on the letters page of that publication because he doesn't seem to like television very much. He has all my sympathy. Since I have been a television critic, I like television less and less with every week that passes. Watching too much of it undermines one's sense of well-being. I recommend anyone who is feeling under the weather to watch less television and see if it helps.
Of course, I am aware that television is, in many ways, a good thing. One beneficial effect, mentioned on Sunday evening in TV on Trial (BBC2), is that it stops some people from going out and drinking. In Iceland they have a television-free day every Thursday, with the result that the police are kept extra busy arresting drunks. Personally I find nothing easier than `Our viewing figures are up. Unfortunately Mrs Whitehouse is one of them.' watching television and drinking at the same time but I can see that this poses less of a threat to society than sitting in a pub.
Television came out of TV on Trial pretty well, which isn't surprising, since everyone who had the temerity to attack it was given a rough ride. The programme differed from a real trial in that there was only one examining counsel, Paul Sieghart, and it was obvious he hadn't been chosen for his antipathy to the box. Sieghart was particularly tough on Revd Peter Mullen, who, judging by his articles in defence of the Authorised Version and the Book of Common Prayer, is a good egg. Mullen is not an experienced television performer but he is brave. Some programmes, he claimed, are 'a dreadful, disgusting, one- dimensional presentation of human experi- ence'. He reminded the 'court' of the saying that no one ever lost money by underestimating the taste of audiences. He pointed out that this view wasn't being examined in the programme because no- body had dared to mention it. 'May I suggest', said Sieghart, in his confident, upper-class way, `that that is both arrogant and patronising.' The exchange proved Mullen's point. In this free, fair, open discussion, there were some things you weren't supposed to say. Sieghart was much nicer to BBC bigwig Bill Cotton. They got on famously - smiling, laughing, positively twinkling. The overall tone of the whole exercise was complacent and self-congratulatory. Nor- man Tebbit has done the BBC a lot of good lately but they risk throwing away their advantage with a programme like this. Open Air, a new morning offering on BBC1, gives viewers the opportunity to phone in and say what they think about the programmes. On Wednesday of last week a woman called Vicky Holder rang to express the opinion that the sitcom No Place Like Home was condescending and patronising towards women. 'Right. Thank you for that salvo,' said presenter Bob Wellings in an unfriendly tone of voice, when Vicky had finished her rather cogent speech. These were the answers she was given. From the leading actor Bill Gaunt: `If you take a view of this series that it is sexist, it means you don't actually under- stand what we're doing. We're presenting a normal family and their family problems.
We're not actually talking about feminist problems at all.' From scriptwriter John Watkins: 'We're not writing about com- petition and women's lib and so on. It's a family show.' Well, of course. We all know that 'feminist problems' can't arise in a normal family, don't we?
Compared with Open Air or the ghastly Points of View, Channel 4's Right to Reply shines like a good deed. The Video Box seems to me an excellent idea. It is less intimidating for members of the public than a studio, while giving them the chance to be seen as well as heard. Last Saturday's contributors included a vicar complaining about blasphemy on Who Dares Wins, a feminist objecting to The Other Victim, a drama about rape, and an economist criti- cising The New Enlightenment. They were introduced in a pleasant, businesslike way by Gus MacDonald. He is the right presen- ter for this programme because nothing In his manner suggests that people who com- plain about television programmes must be fools.
Previous page
