Competitive Television
By NORMAN COLLINS*
AST week the Government made their long-awaited state- ment on competitive televiiion; and it is fair to say that the statement appears to have pleased no one. On one side, the Opposition are still afraid that the Government intend to keep their word and introduce " some element of competition " in " the expanding field of television." And on the other side, the rank and file of Parliamentary Conserva- tives are angry because the Government White Paper which will set forth Government policy in final and precise terms, ready for the Debate, has now been postponed until the Autumn.
Meanwhile the area of controversy has been considerably extended. An ex-B.B.C. Governor, a former Chairman of the B.B.C. Advisory Council, two serving members of the same body and the General Secretary of the National Association of Theatrical and Kine-Employees have formed themselves into a so-called National Television Council which has the avowed object of "resisting the introduction of commercial Television " and perpetuating the present monopoly control of television by the B.B.C. With the extension of controversy there has, however, unfortunately been a corresponding increase in confusion. The Archbishops and the Bishops have vehemently denounced " sponsored " television, despite the fact that " sponsorship " has never been proposed by the Govern- ment and has, indeed, been specifically disavowed by the national advertisers as well as by the Government themselves in their last statement. This particular confusion no doubt arose from the all but total unfamiliarity of the ecclesiastical critics with television in any but monopoly form. For the confusion is one both of term and of intention. " Sponsorship " implies that the advertiser owns a programme outright and merely hires the studio and transmitter facilities of the tele- vision station or network, whereas " commercial " television is commercial only in the sense in which The Times, or this journal, is already commercial. That is to say, both papers retain full and independent control over their own editorial policies but, still exercising the right of choice, are prepared to accept paid advertising. Not that the Bishops have been alone in their misunder- standings. A few equally sincere and anxious churchmen have apparently assumed that the mere possibility of competition threatens the very existence of the B.B.C., though the Govern- ment have been at immense pains to make clear that, far from being threatened, the B.B.C. is actively encouraged to develop and expand. And the confusion has not been confined to confusion of simple fact. Some critics have ventured into still more dangerous fields of theory. Thus, either spon- taneously or at the prompting of the National Television Council, fourteen Vice-Chancellors of Universities—whether with or without the approval of their respective Senates is not clear—have announced their unanimous view that "to place television on a commercial basis . . . must mean that the programme is determined by the criterion not of merit, but of popularity "—a• theory which provokes somewhat baffling speculation when applied to sport, light entertainment and outside broadcasts.
What is'highly significant is that it is the defenders of broad- casting monopoly who have been so conspicuously vocal, while those who are opposed to the continuance of the nationalisa- tion of " information, education and entertainment " (to quote from the preamble to the B.B.C. Charter) have by comparison remained silent. They appear for the most part to be content with the Governments assurance, already given in Command Paper 8550, and see no reason to believe that the Conservative Party will weaken or withdraw either under attack from the Opposition or as a result of the highly expert and adroit
* Mr. Norman Collins was Controller of Television In the B.B.C. from 1947 to 1950. He is now a director of the Associated Broad- casting Development Company.
propaganda now being conducted by the National Television Council. Indeed, all Government supporters point to the fact that when the majority of Lord Beveridge's committee drew attention to the grave defects of monopoly broadcasting and then decided to leave things pretty much as they were, a minority report signed by the Conservative Committee member, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, now Minister of State, recom- mended most uncompromisingly in favour of terminating the B.B.C.'s monopoly. And if the anti-monopolist voice of Conservatism was raised when the Party was out of office, it is assumed that it will not be silent now. Nor are the words of the Prime Minister, uttered in June last year, easily for- gotten : " I must say that the longer I have studied this matter and watched its development in the last few months, the more I am convinced that the present complete monopoly [of the B.B.C.] should not continue." • What is sometimes overlooked is that the controversy is by no means a new one. As long ago as 1948 another Vice- Chancellor, Sir F. W. Ogilvie, wrote as follows: " I was Director-General of the B.B.C. from the autumn of 1938 to the beginning of 1942. . . . My chief impressions were two: the evils of the monopoly system, and the gallant work of a very able and delightful executive staff in trying to overcome them. The B.B.C. itself, good as it is, would gain vastly by the abolition of monopoly and the introduction of competition.' It is simply the appointment of a new Television Advisory Committee with a fresh brief to advise the Government in the distribution of frequencies to accommodate competi-' tive as well as B.B.C. television that has stirred up the fighting. The report, published this week, makes it clear that without in any way interfering with the B.B.C.'s plans for the completion of a network which will cover more than 90 per cent. of the population, there is room enough for other and competitive stations. Apart altogether from the fifty or so stations which could technically (but not economically) be accommodated in what are known as the Ultra High Frequency Bands IV and V, there is adequate space for " three or four high-power stations " using frequencies of the same order as those used by the B.B.C. today. And the Report–goes on to say that " two channels could be allocated to the B.B.C. to complete coverage of its first programme; and at the same time to competitive television. . . . This would enable competi- tive television to make a start on extensive coverage (if so required) and the B.B.C. to complete the coverage of its first programme, both in the most economical way.' But here again there is trouble. For it is in the light of this Report that many Conservative Members are criticising the letter if not the intention of the Postmaster-General's statement. Lord de la Warr referred to the terms in which competitive television " might " (not necessarily " would ") be permitted to operate, and went on to say that it is not likely that a large number of stations will be licensed in the first instance and they will be of low power and limited range." To some of the warmest supporters of the Government this statement seemed to contain more of appeasement than of enthusiasm, while to members of the Opposition the threat appeared no less threatening merely because it was still so vague. On one point both the Government supporters and the Opposition propagandists are united. They know that if the stations are too few and too small to be run economically there can be no element of competition, and the Campaign Secretary of the National Television Council will then be able to congratulate himself on having frustrated the Prime Minister's expressed intention.
Previous page
