TELEVISION

An open letter

BILL GRUNDY

Dear Mr Young,

I wouldn't presume to try and tell you any- thing about television were it not for the fact that you have yourself admitted that you are entirely ignorant of the subject. If that is so, and because you take up your duties as Director General of the rra in only a few months' time, perhaps you'll excuse my temerity, particularly since you'll find that you're responsible to a board of about fifteen people who don't know much about television either, and probably won't be any help to you at all.

First of all, if I were you I'd buy myself a copy of the Television Act 1964. You can get it at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It'll only cost you two bob, and it'll be money well spent; in any case,rm.sure you could • get it back on expenses. There may be a copy lying around 70 Brompton Road, but

I haven't seen much evidence of it being

waved about lately, so perhaps you'd like to make sure and get your own personal copy. You'll find the Act is extremely useful when it comes to discovering just what

your job entails. For example, Section 1, sub-section 3, says quite openly that the Authority—that's you really—shall provide television broadcasting services of high quality. Sub-section 4 says you've got to see that they're informative, educational, and entertaining, although presumably not all at once, at least not all the time. Sub- section 4b says you've got to maintain a high general standard in all respects, and 4c reminds you that you've got to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit. So you see you've got a lot on your plate and we're only up to page 2 of the Act so far.

In Section 3 there's a great deal about your censor function—what can't appear on the screen, and so on; but instead of think- ing negatively, let's have a look at Section 2 and see just what powers you have to enable you to do what Parliament says you've got to.

Well, there's not much doubt about that. The Act says you've got power to do any- thing that you think is necessary to do your job. For instance, you can actually make programmes yourself if you think the pro- gramme contractors aren't doing what they should.

You could look at local programming, for instance. In some areas it is a disgrace; low budgets, few facilities, and precious little talent. A not-so-gentle hint that things just aren't good enough might bring about a startling improvement. It might also im- prove the morale of your regional officers. quite a number of whom feel that the Authority hasn't backed them up enough in such fields in the past.

Another area where you could put the frightening irons on is the matter of cheap (or even expensive) film serials. It is quite within your powers to say to a programme contractor, 'So you've paid £50,000 for this serial, have you? Well, hard luck. It stinks. Take it off'. I'm not, of course, suggesting that you should do this simply because the programme has a rather lower brow than you yourself would like. But the fact is that some of these serials are made with such contempt that a word from you might do a power of good and mean the end of some of the trash we've had to put up with.

Repeats too. I'm sure you never went much on Mark Saber even when (and if) you saw him for the first time. Fifteenth time round he becomes positively unbear- able, as I'm sure you'd agree. The same applies, say, to Robin Hood. Children love Robin Hood. By all means let them have him. But is there any reason, after all this time, why the series shouldn't be re-made, with better acting, better lighting, better camera work, better direction, and so on? Children see some pretty sophisticated shoot- ing in the commercials these days. Why should superior techniques only be seen when people are trying to sell them some- thing? Why not in their programmes too? There's a lot more you can do. Don't be frightened. Just steam ahead, and you might find that you've put the fear of God into one or two people who in the past have tended to ignore whatever Brompton Road might say. As a matter of fact Brompton Road hasn't said a great deal in the past. I hope I neither miwoderstancipor, offend Sir Robert Fraser

when I say that his view was broadly that you appoint programme contractors and let them get on with it, interfering as little as possible. It is a perfectly valid point of view. But I think that while it is true to say that this method, by and large, has worked well, it is equally true to say that some people have occasionally got away with murder. Perhaps you should point out to them that even in these permissive days murder is a crime.

By interfering more than Sir Robert used to, both in the positive ways I've outlined, and in the more negative censor functions laid down in Section 3 of the Act—all that stuff about decency, good taste, political balance and so on—you will undoubtedly antagonise programme companies. You will also antagonise programme producers, directors and writers, a notoriously um- brageous lot who are, however, rather more closely concerned with and involved in pro- viding better television than board of man- agement financiers usually are. I do not think such an antagonism is unhealthy. It can only lead to things being thrashed out to a far greater extent than they have been in the past. Creative tension, they call it. And no wonder, because that word 'creative' is what television is all about. Or should be. Perhaps in your term of office we might see it happening again? I hope so.

Yours respectfully, Bill Grundy.