THE DALLAS AFFAIR
Broadcasting:
Paul Johnson on the evils
of a television cartel
UNLIKE a great many people; I have never seen the television serial Dallas. I understand it is quite dreadful. It is certain- ly much disliked by the people of Dallas, who say it gives their city a bad and misleading name. I can well believe them. I have often visited the place. Despite its reputation and many gleaming skyscrap- ers, I find it one of the most delightful towns in America, with a charming city centre you can walk about. The chief topic of conversation there is not oil, or money, or sex, but religion. Dallas comes closer to being the capital of American Noncon- formity than any other city. An enormous number of clergymen seem to live in and around it, and when I was last there in February, to make a speech, the sort of questions I was asked were, 'How strongly does your Mrs Thatcher believe in Jesus?' `What precisely is the contemporary sig- nificance of the Biblical prophecies con- cerning the Jewish people?' and 'What is your opinion of the Book of Job?' I rather suspect that Dallas the serial, as opposed to Dallas the city, is a gigantic con-trick.
But then people love to be conned by TV and there is no doubt that TV viewers in Britain, as elsewhere, want to watch this programme. So it is natural that the people who actually do the work at the BBC and ITV, which are supposed to be in competi- tion, should want to possess this sure-fire ratings-raiser, and be prepared to fight for it. In a free, open and honest society, it would go to the highest bidder. That was what was about to happen when Bryan Cowgill, managing director of Thames TV, outbid the BBC and bought the series earlier this year from its US distributor, Worldvision. It was a straightforward com- mercial transaction, raising no ethical issues whatever. Indeed, since ITV has more viewers than the Corporation, espe- cially among the kind of people who like Dallas, the deal could be said to be in the public interest.
But of course the people who run the BBC-ITV duopoly — the people who make the speeches and collect the titles and gongs — are not concerned with the public interest as you and I conceive it, dear reader. They are concerned with the public interest as they conceive it: round- ing a nice, cosy establishment set-up, keeping the duopoly afloat and imposing their view of society and culture on the British people. I believe this duopoly to be one of the greatest evils in Britain today. The reason I joined the new Cable Author- ity, set up by Parliament to promote the spread of cable, is that cable TV is one of the instruments which will smash the duopoly to atoms.
When the BBC brass heard they had lost Dallas they set up a caterwauling. Lord Thomson, the chairman of the IBA, and its Director-General, John Whitney, were quickly brought into the matter. The tone the BBC has adopted is a highly moral one, though it bats me what is particularly moral about showing Dallas in the first place. If Thomson had the real interests of independent television and the public at heart, he would have simply given the BBC the brush-off. Indeed, he would have gone further and congratulated Thames and Cowgill on their capture, which was (in all the circumstances) a notable business coup.
But Thomson did nothing of the sort. In Cowgill's version of the affair, he behaved like any other monopolist or cartel- member, who places its corporate interest before that of the public. He decided that Thames's triumph was against the longer- term interests of the duopoly, summoned the company's chairman, Hugh Dundas, to the IBA and threatened him with removal of its franchise unless Thames relinquished the programme and let the BBC have it back. Of course Dundas, as he now admits, was also under pressure from other ele- ments in the duopoly, such as certain ITV companies, who prefer the cartel system to free market forces. According to the Sun- day Times, an even more remarkable meeting took place on 15 April, when Thomson repeated the threat in the pre- sence of Stuart Young, chairman of the BBC's governors, and the BBC's managing director, Bill Cotton. Here, they suggest, were the official guardians of supposed competitors meeting secretly to stifle com- petition. You could search the annals of capitalism in vain to find a more perfect example of a cartel in action. They were in effect saying to the viewers: 'To hell with the public — this is a carve-up, we are in charge, that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always going to be.'
But is it? With the BBC governors and the IBA in total collusion, they have had their way so far. Brian Cowgill lost the battle and resigned in disgust. But the duopoly may not have won the war. Cowgill has refused to do the establish- ment thing and keep quiet. He told the Sunday Mirror: 'Thomson and Whitney have subjected Thames to daily pressure which you would not believe . . .If it goes back Ito the BBC], those two damned idiots will have handed it back. I did not poach Dallas. I bought it in a free market. In the US I would be a hero. But ever since those two twits at the IBA have said: "It's not cricket, we must give it back." It's absurd.' As he said to the Sunday Times, 'I was amazed and depressed by the amount of collusion.'
Now that this little piece of cartel be- haviour has come out into the open, I think Lord Thomson owes it to the public to give a full account of his behaviour. There are important issues at stake. The BBC-IBA duopoly is a hybrid, half public sector, half private enterprise. Public ownership has some advantages; so does capitalism. The trouble with the BBC-IBA set-up is that it has the virtues of neither and the vices of both. So I think both Tory and Labour MPs have a strong motive for looking into this business. Here is one case of collusion which has come to light because of a public row and resignation. How many are there we don't know about? How often do Stuart Young and Thomson get together to fix things? The issue, above all, should con- cern the Government, which is supposed to be opening up the country to the spirit of competition. I doubt if many, or even any, members of the cabinet watch Dallas. But they can recognise an issue of principle. Certainly Mrs Thatcher can. She should tell her Home Secretary to find out the truth of the matter. It may be that Thorn- son has a lot of private information which justifies his behaviour. But if not he should be replaced by someone dedicated to the promotion of competition on our screens, not its suppression.
Previous page
