SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. THOMPSON Although the BBC's plans for sound radio have been pretty hotly criticised, one argu- ment which it seems to have won is over the abandonment of the old Reithian prin- ciple of 'balanced' programmes. It's no good trying to broaden listeners' horizons by mixing up different kinds of broadcasting, we are told, because nowadays nine listeners out of ten just switch off anything 'uncon- genial'. So the new view of sound radio likens the service to a public library: and in a library, as Mr Frank Gillard remarks, you don't expect to find books of different cate- gories all mixed up together on the shelves.
This argument is perfectly reasonable. But what seems to have escaped attention is how damaging the library analogy is to the BBC's own insistence upon providing a 'comprehensive' service. No one, after all, expects a library to supply everything. All libraries—even the British Museum—are founded upon selectivity. Why should the national, publicly-financed radio 'library' be different? There is no more reason for the public radio to spend a lot of money on incessant pop on Radio One than there would be for any other public library to allot a large part of its resources to pulp fiction. The Bac, prompted no doubt by deep imperialist urges, is rather brazenly confusing its traditional monopoly role with the quite different new role it has defined for itself. The Reithian principle justified the monopoly; without it, monopoly is neither necessary nor desirable.
I suspect that the BBC would serve the public interest far better if it recognised this and concentrated upon the kind of pub- lic service broadcasting it has traditionally believed in. There's no reason why pop or parish-pump local radio should be linked with 'library' public service broadcasting.
Sacred cow
If the nature of sound radio has changed— as manifestly it has, by the BBC's own ad- mission—it would have been sensible to take a fresh look at the financial base of the service, too. I hope the BBC never has to go in for advertising on its programmes. But then I don't wish to see advertising in public libraries either. There is a great deal to be said now for paying for public service broadcasting in the way we pay for other public services, namely out of taxation. It wouldn't be impossible to devise ways of assuring continuity and independence similar to those provided for universities; in any case, no one could say that the Bac is at present wholly sure of its future or altogether insensitive to government views.
The much-venerated licence fee system is in some ways a nonsense. It almost ranks as that last absurdity, a voluntary tax; and the large numbers of people who don't volunteer to pay it cost the BBC many millions of pounds of lost revenue every year. It seems a pity that while the Third Programme. various orchestras, and much else, were being lined up for slaughter, this particular sacred cow was not even given a critical glance.
In proportion
Perhaps it's because so few people have much to do with the churches these days: but some of the reactions to the Anglican- Methodist affair have been thoroughly un- realistic. 'A shattering blow', 'a tragedy', 'a grave setback'—these and similar extrava- gant comments have been plentiful. I've even seen it suggested that if the Archbishop of Canterbury were a political leader he would be bound to resign after such a 'defeat' (as if Mr Wilson would instantly quit Downing Street if only 69 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour party agreed with him over, say, trade union reform). A sense of perspective is overdue.
For one thing, the implication that if Methodists and Anglicans are not institu- tionally united they're in some sort of state of enmity is nonsense. There have been many periods when relations between dif- ferent groups of Christians have violently contradicted the faith they professed, but this is not such a period in England. Fur- ther, it's clearly in the interests of all con- cerned to wait until the decision to unite can be so nearly unanimous as to be un- sontroversial; and the churches are—or ought to be—freer than politicians to take the long view.
It shouldn't be overlooked that some of the urge towards institutional 'unity' is based upon mere fashion. After two thousand years it is hardly surprising that adhgrents of one faith should have developed various subdivisions either of belief or of practice. If the different groups treat each other with mutual cordiality and respect, any sudden attempt to treat this peaceable diversity as a major scandal is in danger of seeming both trendy and bogus.
Dash for freedom
I have rather enjoyed reading this weettla Arts Council document which recom- mends the repeal of the Obscene Publica- tions Acts. It's not only briskly and cheer- fully written but it also contains some im- formative passages on the actual working of the law at present. There is, for example, the evidence of the Treasury Counsel who was asked what guided him in recommend- ing a book for prosecution. He replied that the test he used 'was whether the book had made him feel randy'. It was, he con- ceded, 'entirely subjective—but what else is there?'
This document is something of a land- mark in the long history of the state's in- volvement with private morality. Not only did Lord Goodman's working party (with representatives of the arts, publishers, and so on in its number) decide in favour of repealing the Obscenity Acts near con; it was also the personal preference of most witnesses. Perhaps this wasn't altogether surprising in view of the composition of the groups. The interesting question is whether the report will have any practical effect. Its authors recognise that their recommended clean sweep of this form of censorship may be thought too radical for Parliament at the moment, although they make much of the claim that since Denmark adopted a similar course two years ago the demand for porn- ography had dropped sharply. Perhaps the Tories, who hope to dominate the next Parliament on a set-the-people-free, cut- down-government-interference ticket, will support their proposed dash for freedom? Perhaps.
Previous page
