Broadcasting
The Pubservebrod beast
Paul Johnson This week the advent of Channel Four (or ITV 2 as it ought to be called) increased by one third the amount of 'public service broadcasting' to which the British TV public is exposed. It has long been an axiom in Whitehall and more respectable club- land, in the posh media, among Guardian readers and in the universities, that 'Pub- servebrod' is an unarguably good thing, the constituent .which makes British TV and radio 'the best in the world'. This view is even official government policy, to the point where the need to protect the 'in- terests' of Pubservebrod was written into the terms of reference of the Hunt Commit- tee on cable TV.
In reality the interests of Pubservebrod are quite different from the interests of the public. Indeed, they are increasingly in con- flict. I have no doubt at all that the present cosy four-channel set-up of BBC and ITV serves the interests of Pubservebrod and those who control and benefit from it: it provides them with jobs for the boys and girls, unlimited, carefully protected air-time and, thanks to the combination of licence fee and regional advertising monopoly, total financial security. It is one of the most beautiful, legal and above all respectable rackets in British history.
But does it serve the interests of the public: that is, the British nation, and the ordinary people who compose it? On the contrary. I would argue that over the past quarter-century, and increasingly, the BBC- ITV duopoly has operated consistently against the public interest. Thanks to its shared consensus, based upon the Sixties liberal pharmacopoeia of diagnosis and remedies, it has acted as a dissolvent of society. It has devalued authority in all its legitimate forms. It has undermined institu- tions. In particular, it has waged a persis- tent and ultimately highly successful cam- paign to destroy public confidence in the police and in law enforcement generally. It has promoted crime, and especially violent crime, and indeed violence in all its forms. It has made the problems of Ulster, of the inner cities, and of racial disharmony, in- finitely harder to solve or even contain and these are only three specific examples where its direct impact on national weaknesses has been disastrous. Last and by no means least, it serves the ambitions of those extremists who wish to accelerate the process of social dissolution. In all these respects it operates directly contrary to the public interest.
For an outstanding example of the last category of Pubservebrod damage, we need look no further than the case of Arthur Scargill. The National Union of Mineworkers is one of our most important unions, capable of inflicting enormous damage, or conferring real benefits on the country. If ever there was a clear public in- terest, it is that this union should remain in sensible and responsible hands. Scargill is a pithead agitator of the most foolish kind, who in an earlier age would have spouted his nonsense and threshed his arms at a purely local level. Pubservebrod made him a national figure and President of the Union. It would be very interesting to discover how often Scargill has been en- couraged to avail himself of the publicity resources of BBC and ITV, the total quanti- ty of air time he has been handed on a plate, indeed paid to use. This is the sort of infor- mation that one of the 'media studies' units at our universities might provide, if they were not too busy disseminating Marxist propaganda. My guess is that, since the ear- ly Seventies, Scargill had been given more prominence on TV (and radio) than any other public figure, with the possible excep- tion of the actual party leaders. Of course I can understand why producers want him on their programmes. He is always good for a `controversial' spout; he is eager, and will drive through the night at the slightest in- een o r his voice on the waves; he is a reliable Per former. But these are commercial e°11, siderations, of precisely the type Whore should be balanced against other, 0,i° serious ones, in a broadcasting sYst.e". which genuinely worked as a public service The country has just been saved fr°11I a calamitous coal-strike, possibly clegerienair ating into a general strike and indusi hara-kiri, thanks entirely to the good sense, of the ordinary miners and the efforts °I Fleet Street. Pubservebrod, by corftt' having created Scargill as a national figuM having made him President of the was with him to the end. It gave extensive coverage to his rallies, pressing the c before the strike. On Saturday night, just b.,,,,,ir the miners voted, it gave him half an on BBC 2, at the prime time of 7.15',s deploy his arguments. He was on B13.'" Any Questions; Nationwide is `Pr°111114,0 him. It would be hard to think of anYtin,".°1 m. ore calculated to work against the PI ih interest than broadcasting exposure at suc:a a time. And don't give me that bit about IP5, BBC having a 'duty' to let the ritilleris I leader put his view. The coal industrY4c publicly-owned; the coal board are Pt! v servants, working for all of us, not servinga sectional interest like the NUM. But Yclar know, and I know, that the BBC Pubservebrod as a whole — would 01; dream of giving Norman Siddall, the Chal„f man of the Coal Board, half an hour. "st peak viewing to put the public's case Pi/ before a pit ballot. The poor man is luck. Y he gets thirty seconds on a TV news-cIII).i'y f Scargill is by no means the °P_ I Pubservebrod hero. Current affairs Pr'ea ducers are now working hard to lOcilithe one from the Militant Tendency. At he Blackpool Labour conference the catnet'he gave tremendous coverage to one of at, dreariest political meetings I have ever tended, and the idea seemed to be to 11` a sent Peter Taafe, editor of Militant, as t, jkind of alternative leader to Michael (In just as they once presented Scargill as, is alternative to Joe Gormley. The Poee—any continuing. Last week an ITV °MP 4- asked me to take part in a 30-minuefps work programme featuring Taafe. I re for ed, on the grounds that he spoke ,,Id nobody and that only TV exposure e'bt make him important. But I have 11° Pubservebrod will continue to push 111 as a is not enough to argue that Militant h eat right to coverage as it represents a segi dad soifmda opir groups. pSso do the National Front for I n any ere, niwoaunld ogurgeassnitshaetyjosnpeolti: Far Left. But the duopoly would never more people' than them a single second of screen time t°,,r.ce sent their case. The truth is, 'public se4ve broadcasting' does not exist. What we self is Pubservebrod: a self-perpetuating, lap( serving interest group with a marked slap( to the Left. The sooner it is smashed °that by competitive TV the better. I susPectby Channel Four will hasten the process, raj presenting Pubservebrod in a carieatu form.
Previous page
