TELEVISION

Sir Hugh's Apologia

MY ears are still ringing with a thin, Olympian music; my eyes are haunt a 'vision of very pure, very smooth ball disappearing into the - stratosphere. In words. I have been reading Sir Hugh G on 'The BBC's Duty to Society' (the List June 17).

'The Main purpose of broadcasting,' Sir begins in his introduction to what is to be a series of articles by various people, 'is to the microphone and the television screen able to the widest possible range of subjec to the best exponents available of the diff views on any given subject.' Subjects, you n not situations or experiences, not the refl of how our society assimilates its cultural heritance, adjusts ,its tensions, re-interprets confirms its values' and begins to move for we are back with the headmaster as he exg the new curriculum—`the Upper Sittth may Advanced Sex . . . boys in the Shell are Off Elementary Anthropology or Gardening.' A' mention of entertainment either now or, (nor of ITV or TAM ratings). What Sir' wants, with an. eye to the' critics and esp the cleaner-uppers, is 'healthy scepticism particularlY, if ideally, 'the deepest scepticiSm the profoundest faith.' The quote is from but a mite muddling all the same.

Sir Hugh makes much of the BBC's obligS to be impartial on controversial issues in co affairs, of its need 'to be ahead of public opini of the fact that 'editorial control' or 'edit discretion' must not amount to censorship thus inhibit the advanced and even the Sh' ing, and of the fact that 'no subject Can excluded . . . simply for being what it is.' 14 ever, he never comes down to. actual rases he derides the effects of sponsorship in United States..

As the various balloons sail up; labelled T fulness, Compassion, Tolerance, Healthy ticism, and as the voice insists, 'How can consciously plan for the unreasonable or unintelligent?,' we rebellious fags can't nudging each other and whispering, `Coiii . . . Hot Line? . . . Juke Box Jury?'. Dimbleby 'healthily sceptical'? Was `tolerant' and 'compassionate,' and should, have been? Did lan Trethowan give an 'impa picture of the Oxford Teach-in? Were the exponents' really used for the Shakespeare tenary? As for that 'no subject can be exclu how much, for instance, do we ever hear a Marxism or other non-religious philosophi .how often do we meet a saint, a genius 0 madman?

A bit of a Reithian myself, I believe that grammes should grip some sort of audience the time (and should never be contemptib those who respect the medium) and that ni of them should educate the unintelligent by reflecting and interpreting contemporary soc Instead of lazy telly conventions, often invol the magical superiority of the medium, we wa critical play of mind across both program and society, with criticism and self-explana built into the programme structure. These h sounding themes bring me to Mr. Kenn Adam's Listener article, the second in the set which I have no space to discuss. I recomme it as one of the oddest, most muddled and n hysterical pronouncements I've read in years.

d.

t/ e] e A

p

5.

C C

a c

e If h e

cC

flu pt

'1 at

01 PATRICK Anima