11111112
Compton Mackenzie
NOT having been born when Darwin's Origin of Species was published, I cannot say whether the discussions inspired by it were fiercer than those inspired by the prospect of commercial television, but within my memory no topic has divided public opinion so acrimoniously as this question of an alternative television programme financed by advertisers.
Let me say at once that I should regard it as a disaster to hand over television entirely to private interests as in the United States,•but I cannot see any objection to the 'modified form of competition proposed in the Government White Paper. Lord Hailsham during the debate in the House of Lords called the White Paper a mule, and in the course of his remarks made some aspersions on mules which those who know what. a part mules have played in rescuing the British Army from threats of disaster may justifiably resent. The mule is not a " dangerous and unworkable animal," the mule is not " ludicrous " and it is certainly not " inglorious." I venture to suggest that the noble lords who regard the prospect of com- mercial television with such horror are making a chimera out of a mule.
I recognise that from the point of view of a sadly small minority the programmes likely to appeal to advertisers will be as dreary as those pseudo-comic half-hours with which the Home Service and the Light Programme of the BBC compete with one another for the favour of listeners. The reason, however, will not be an innate vulgarity in the business men who desire to advertise their wares but an ambition to gratify the taste of the largest body of viewers that can be reached. An examination of the advertisements in the popular Press will show that laxatives, easy washing, gasper cigarettes, ready- made food, and toothpaste take up much of the space. We may doubt if those who wish to 'bring such products to the notice of the public will choose Beethoven's Choral Symphony or Brahms's Requiem as the irresistible prelude. Nevertheless, if some high-minded toothpaste vendor were to proclaim its lustral efficacy at the end of the music I doubt if it would be more unpleasant than the massed coughing of the audience between the movements of a symphony, or the too often hysterical applause at the end for a mediocre performance, which broadcasting reproduces all too faithfully.
If commercial television gave us good programmes I should not worry in the least about the advertising, but so long as television as entertainment makes its main appeal to those who provide the circulation of the popular Press we may take it as certain that the bulk of the programmes will aim to secure that audience. It is in fact what BBC control of television is doing at this moment, and there is no justification for the compliments which various noble lords lavished upon that control. Television is now in the state of broadcasting in the earliest days at Savoy Hill, and if Lord Reith were still Director-General I should be tempted to support the most rigid monopoly for at least another five years because he would have the strength of mind to resist popular clamour and set the admirable course he set for broadcasting.
Yet even a monopoly administered by a strong man of the highest ideals can be a menace if it remain in the hands of the State. , Indeed, I believe it is time for the Light Programme of the BBC to be handed over to commercial broadcasting, and that the money spent on that programme by the BBC should be spent on television. I should have liked to see television itself in a less elementary condition before it was available for commercial programmes, but in the circumstances the Government was probably well' advised to admit now the principle of competition. Moreover, if the alternative pro, gramme can be financed by advertisers, and if such a programme be aimed at securing the largest audience, I see no reason why the licence for a television set should not be doubled in price and the additional revenue applied to improving television in every direction. In that case it would be dishonest for the Treasury to raid such extra revenue for its own purposes. These raids by Chancellors of the Exchequer on the money obtained from motorists to maintain and improve roads, and now upon the BBC, are inexcusable. The exaction of income-tax should suffice when it is remembered that all the performers pay income-tax as well.
The openly expressed intention of the Socialists to reverse the Government decision when they return to power is no doubt due to the fear that commercial television will be used by their political opponents to their disadvantage; it is certainly not inspired by any respect for art. The record of the Socialist Government in art and education was grey and dim. It is idle to pour out money on sending young people to the universities without any proportionate rewards to those who have to teach them, and Parnassus does not provide the perfect site for a municipal park. If broadcasting and television are to become exclusively weapons of bureaucracy, the last hope of averting the decline of Great Britain into a second-class nation will vanish. We have had a foretaste of the future the demand that if one MP is a member of the Any Questions team another MP of the opposite party shall also have a place. In justice to the Socialists it should be stated that this demand originated with the Tories. Both parties now ration the appearances of their members in broadcasting and television, and such rationing is a direct threat to free speech whatever may be the benefit to party discipline.
Every argument used in the House of Lords debate and in the correspondence columns of the Press against commercial television could be used against certain items in the existing programmes of broadcasting and television with equal force, but even if both were above criticism the dangers inherent in monopoly would remain. It is not only free speech that will be threatened: it is also the freedom of the artist whether he be a highbrow poet or a wisecracking comic. The time may be not so far distant when an artist debarred from broadcasting or television will find it impossible to persuade the public that he really exists. Such power for suppression must be guarded against. I do not believe that the present adminis- tration of the BBC would descend to such a policy and the complaints of artists that they are being deliberately denied to a longing public can usually be accounted for by an exaggerated self-esteem. Nevertheless, a secure monopoly always leads at last to lethargy and corruption, and to place the future of entertainment in the hands of a secure monopoly will inevitably foster the second-rate at the expense of the best.
The most plausible argument against commercial television was the likelihood of its leading people to spend money at a time when it was necessary to export more and more of our wares;. but if its cogency were admitted the only logical course would be to forbid advertising in any form and, inasmuch as no government has yet dared to tax advertisements, it seems improbable that any government will venture to prohibit them.
I return to what I consider the danger of a monopoly in matters of the mind. The monopoly of the BBC in sound broadcasting can only be extended to the televisitIll of the future at the risk of a standardisation of education, news, criticism and entertainment which must end in egalitarian mediocrity. Nobody has more reason to be grateful to the BBC than myself, and if the BBC were hally independent of the Government in power and of the permanent official I might be tempted to keep silent about the evil of monopoly. The BBC, however, is an instrument of the State and the menace of that monopoly in the future is too grave to allow my personal feelings to prevail.
Previous page
