THE RETURN OF BIG BROTHER
The media: Paul Johnson
looks critically at Labour's new proposals
THE Labour Party's policy review, Meet the Challenge, Make the Change, which was published last week, is a repellently long document, over 120,000 words by my calculation. I doubt if it will be read through by anyone, other than by those who wrote bits of it, perhaps, and by those party fanatics for whom politics is the only thing in life. It is a profoundly depressing document too, exuding in every paragraph the spirit of bossiness, the compulsion to peer into and correct every aspect of our behaviour by those who know best what is good for us. To get the full flavour you have to imagine it read aloud in the flat, aggressive tones of a female social anthro- pology lecturer at a polytechnic, who is also secretary of the local Labour Party and chairperson of its Anti-Discrimination Sub-Committee.
Such a being, one presumes, will be a member of the new kind of Press Council which the Labour Party, on page 60 of the document, proposes to bring into exist- ence. This will replace the existing volun- tary organisation, financed by the industry with joint industry-public membership, by a statutory quango, paid for by the state, whose members will be appointed and salaried by the Government. You can imagine who they will be: our lady from the polytechnic, of course, other left-wing academics for sure, one or two senior trade union bosses, a black activist, an Asian activist, a statutory Welshperson, Scots- person and Ulsterperson, a legal mark or two from the Society of Labour Lawyers and possibly an elderly 'progressive' peer, Who had something to do with newspapers in the middle age.
The council will have considerable pow- ers to compulsion. It will be able to require newspapers, by law, to 'correct inaccur- acies', and presumably to define what constitutes an inaccuracy. As, in my ex- perience, the great majority of people, Including celebrated philosophy profes- sors, are quite incapable of distinguishing the difference between matters of fact and opinion, that opens up a wide field of Intervention. The council will also be able to order a paper to print replies to what it publishes. What happens if the editor refuses to do what the council commands? The document does not say whether the council will have the powers of the High Court and will be able to arraign recalcit- rant editors for contempt and/or fine and imprison them. But it is hard to see how else its rulings can be enforced. The document says the council's 'full powers will be the subject of public consultation and discussion with the proprietors and newspaper unions in the industry during the coming year'. The point about the right to punish is of course vital since the council will rule not only on individual complaints but on ideological issues. It will, for instance, 'set minimum standards on the portrayal of women and ethnic minorities'. I take this to mean it will be empowered to insist that newspapers and magazines de- vote a proportion of their space to these two groups, and treat them in an approved way, as well as punish publications which offend them in covering the news.
The document does not say whether the new council will cover books as well as publications. But as on page 59 it con- demns 'sexual and racial stereotyping', and these are just as likely to occur in fiction as in reporting, it is hard to see a future Labour government, or rather the pressure-groups which will influence its actions, tolerating one standard in the media and another in book-publishing. Nor is it clear whether the council will control advertising. But page 42 of the document states: 'We also intend to bring in an effective statutory control of advertis- ing practice, with powers to order correc- tive advertising.' What will these powers be? The document does not say, but presumably, again, they will be enforced by fines and/or imprisonment. Who will exercise them? It could be the Advertising Standards Council or the new Press Coun- cil. But, however this vagueness is re- solved, it is clear that a future Labour government will, in effect, be setting up something like a board of censors, with both negative powers to punish breaches of its orders and positive powers to compel publications to insert material at its direc- tion. That is something the press in Britain has never had to face since its inception. Indeed, the proposed council will operate in ways not unlike the old ecclesiastical supervision of printing once exercised by the Bishop of London and ended in the 1640s.
The section on broadcasting is in some ways equally sinister but is more confused and contradictory. That is not surprising. Labour's instinct is to boss every part of the media. But it is much less opposed to freedom of broadcasting than it is to freedom of the press, since the television- radio duopoly gives a sympathetic express- ion to its views and is generally hostile to Thatcherism. The document made me smile by going out of its way to make such feelings clear: 'Channel Four', it solemnly pronounces, 'has achieved a consistently high standard of broadcasting', i.e., it is reliably left-wing and run mainly by people well-disposed to Labour. Far from impos- ing a statutory board of censorship, as with the press, a future Labour government promises to disband the Broadcasting Stan- dards Council as it may be used 'to impose unacceptable limitations on the freedom of programme makers'. But if broadcasters think Labour will let them alone, they are quite mistaken. It intends to 'negotiate' with the television and radio companies to `improve standards' over violence and 'sex- ual and racial stereotyping'. Nothing is said about what will happen if such negotiations fail. But presumably here again statutory penalties will be introduced if broadcasters refuse to toe Labour's line on these sub- jects. And there is a distinct threat that the award and revocation of franchises will be used to 'improve quality'. The document adds: 'We will introduce a system of formal warnings of failure to achieve agreed stan- dards and of financial penalties for persis- tent offenders'. Who is to determine what constitutes 'quality' and 'agreed stan- dards'? Presumably a Labour government or a quango it appoints. In short, broad- casting, like the press, will be placed within a framework of direction and punishment, according to criteria which reflect the notions of Labour Party activists. What readers and viewers think or want will be secondary. It is a disturbing prospect.
Journalists and broadcasters who have been lambasting Mrs Thatcher for what they claim is her hostile attitude to the independence of the media should now look seriously at the gruesome alternative.
Previous page
