WHO'S THE MASTER?
The media: Paul Johnson
thinks the IBA more likely to be axed than TV-am
I DOUBT if many readers of The Spectator watch breakfast television. Like television as a whole until the second half of the 1950s, it is a bit non-U. It is not at all non-U in America however. Indeed over there it is the best part of the television service, with overnight news film from all over the world and often some hair-raising live action coverage. Whenever I am in the United States I have the television blaring away from 6.30 a.m. onward, even when I am in my bath and shaving (some of the better hotels have an additional small television screen next to the shaving mir- ror). Over here I watch it less regularly, as it means going down to the library, but I see it often enough to give my stamp of consumer approval to the ITV channel, TV-am. Not that I am criticising BBC's Breakfast Time, which runs a worthy, if trifle dull, service. But TV-am is sharper, faster-moving and more condensed, with a well-focussed news service of the kind you want in a hurry at breakfast. It is not surprising that the viewers greatly prefer it.
In its earliest incarnation, TV-am got off to. a disastrous start and nearly came to grief completely. Its eventual success was and is largely due to the energy of its managing director, Bruce Gyngell, who Shows a spirit of entrepreneurial vigour almost entirely foreign to the comatose complacency of the BBC-ITV duopoly. That in itself is enough to make him unpopular among our television establish- ment. Worse, Gyngell had the courage to take on the television unions, whose out- rageous demands and general bloody- mindedness have made broadcasting, as Mrs Thatcher puts it, the last great bastion of union power and restrictive practices. Other ITV bosses had grumbled private- ly at union rapacity and obstructiveness but in practice had put up with it, on the grounds that the dupology system allowed for both union greed and shareholders' Profits, and if the public suffered — what the hell. But Gyngell took the unions on and, in effect, has beaten them decisively, for though the dispute continues he has succeeded in maintaining a service, impro- ving the total viewing figures and raising revenue. It has been a calamity for the
unions and even the old-style ITV com- panies are now rousing themselves from their traditional cowardice and showing a few cautious fangs in wage negotiations.
In short, Gyngell is in the process of doing a one-man Wapping in the television industry. You might have thought, then, that the Independent Broadcasting Au- thority, which is supposed to look after the national interest, would regard Gyngell as the hero of the hour. Not at all: to the IBA Gyngell is the villain and TV-am is the black sheep of the industry. The IBA has long been under pressure from the trade unions to go for TV-am on the grounds that, by sacking the union technicians who went on strike, it has lowered the quality of its service. The IBA is itself a rather supine and unenterprising body, most reluctant to welcome change. Its regards Gyngell as a disturber of the peace. After much mutter- ing and half-threats it summoned Gyngell to an interview last week and warned him that TV-am was falling below the technical standards and quality of content required by its contract. It appears to have given him until 7 September to carry out 'im- provements' under threat of losing the contract. The threat is almost certainly an empty one since any attempt to carry it out would doubtless be met by litigation, and, in view of the ratings, and indeed close scrutiny of the authority's statutory obliga- tions, it is difficult to see how the IBA could justify such a drastic move, which would be seen as a one-sided intervention in an industrial dispute.
It is possible, of course, that the IBA, which likes to keep its yard-arm square, is 'And don't let this genuine reduction fool you...' simply going through the motions of cautioning TV-am, in order to satisfy the unions and other pressure-groups, and that it will be content with the changes Gyngell agreed to introduce in response to its criticisms. All the same, two questions arise and the government, which needs to keep a close watch on the IBA's relations with TV-am, should be asking them. First, by what right and with what authority does the IBA set itself up as a kind of super- numerary television critic, seeking to im- pose opinions about content which run contrary to those of viewers? Second, and more important, should it not act, in cases where a programme company is involved in an industrial dispute, with a view to the long-term interests of British television? The IBA, unlike the Cable Authority to which I belong, does not have a specific obligation to promote its industry. But such a duty is implicit in its functions. Clearly, on any long-term view, the closed shop stranglehold the unions established over television has operated against the quality of programmes and the spirit of innovation. Manning levels, overtime rates and travel conditions imposed have long, for instance, restricted overseas coverage. Union reluctance to work new equipment, except at an exorbitant price, has inhibited flexibility. Above all, the unions have taken a totally disproportionate share of money available to make programmes. No one who has ever worked in television can doubt that it is in the public interest for union power to be drastically reduced.
In this respect, the parallel with old Fleet Street is exact. In the post-Wapping era, new papers have been springing up, cover- age at home and abroad has greatly im- proved and a new atmosphere of hope and enterprise has galvanised the industry. It is undeniable that breaking the grip of the television unions would have a similar impact on broadcasting — and at just the time when it is most needed, with satellite, cable and video offering ever-stronger competition. Against this background, the behaviour of the IBA to TV-am seems, to put it mildly, perverse.
But then we have to remember that the IBA is very much part of the television establishment and above all of the era of duopoly. It was born of the duopoly, lives by it, and will die with it. Thanks to the 'license to print money', of which it is the indirect beneficiary, it has always staffed itself and conducted its affairs in generous fashion. It has its own comfortable, time- honoured place at the trough, alongside the rich programme companies and the muscular unions. Why should it want the whole cosy set-up turned upside down in the interests of efficiency, progress and wider choice? The IBA, in short, is a classic example of a vested interest and so a perfect target for a reforming Thatcher goverment. Its behaviour towards Gyngell's TV-am will merely whet Mrs 'Thatcher's appetite for wielding the axe.
Previous page
