BBC and the public interest
Sir: Mrs Whitehouse (Letters, 9 August) says that my statement that we have, frequently crossed swords has 'an air of unreality about it' for her, and goes on to 'begin to wonder whether we speak the same language'. I am beginning to feel rather like Alice in Wonderland, and while I suppose it would be rude to cast Mrs Whitehouse in the role of Humpty Dumpty her attitude to semantics closely resembles his.
Let me try to define my terms. When I refer to my concern for the quality of a Tv programme I mean its intrinsic worth. Is it good of its kind, or does it fall into the mindless rubbish category? I think the qual- ity of TV programmes will have some effect upon what Mrs Whitehouse calls 'the qual- ity of the whole of life'. It does not follow that my concern for cultural standards means that I lack concern for the quality of life. Rather, I should have thought, the reverse is true. But then, Mrs Whitehouse's whole letter seems to me to be an exposi- tion of the non sequitur.
Her third paragraph can be read to mean almost anything (or nothing) and I am bound to say that I have previously encoun- tered such waffle only in straight Nub% pro- paganda. Once more she rails against the 'permissive' society and presents her extra- ordinary conspiracy theory—that of the 'ingrown intellectual coterie' who are 'not only polluting life but also poisoning and destroying Art'. According to Mrs White- house they have been remarkably success- ful in a short space of time, and if this were true how undesirable (and indeed danger- ous) such a state of affairs would be. But who are these people? Is there a co-ordin- ating brain behind them? How does one recognise them, and where are they to be found? Al the sec? I regard this as the wildest fantasy, and shall continue to do so in the absence of any real evidence of the existence of the conspirators.
Finally, the Advisory Councils. Mrs Whitehouse writes (of my claim to be inde- pendent) 'Apart from the fact that she... was invited to serve by the BBC I'm sure she is. (Non sequitur) She goes on to say that because I am independent I 'cannot possibly speak for anyone but myself. ...and [my] friends and acquaintances.' (Non sequitur) Independent to me means free—and par- ticularly free from the pressures which might be put upon me were I appointed as a representative of some organisation, rather than a representative human being; part, in fact, of a cross-section of society. Independent does not mean unapproach- able; indeed I am frequently approached both by letter and in person by people who wish me to represent their views. And my independence certainly does not prevent me from representing views other than my own to the BBC. I do a good deal of this.
Is Mrs Whitehouse satisfied? I doubt it, but enough is enough—for your readers, and, I may say, for me! I'm signing off now.
Previous page
