Junk and porn
Sir: Paul Johnson's views on broadcasting are always interesting and provocative, but his latest piece in support of Peter Jay and the deregulation of television is unconvinc- ing (26 June). After numerous swipes at every group that seeks to control television, some quite justified like the attempt of British Telecom's dead hand to get hold of cable, he comes to the startling and I think bogus conclusion that the rapid growth of video, deregulated of course and therefore natural and healthy, is probably a desirable model for television in future. It is well- known that most of the video cassettes on sale are either feature films from Hollywood or junk, much of it por- nography. I cannot see that this is ad- mirable or likely to change, any more than the Sun is.
The argument that quality writing flourishes in the free market of journalism and publishing is surely specious, partly because in fact much less good stuff is being published, but mainly because the financial risks in television are of an order of magni- tude greater than in most publishing projects. Who is going to advance money, regularly in Paul Johnson's brave new electronic babel — say £100,000 for an interesting documen- tary series, much more for drama? Much safer to stick to feature films and porn.
The birth of television in its present form in England was an accident but why deny that there is a strong connection between regulation and the accepted success of the BBC in its heyday? Paul Johnson likes to talk about the ruinous effects of 'cowboys' in the present BBC. Has he now cast himself as a maverick Clint Eastwood figure set to beat up the nannies and rescue Freedom of Expression?
Andrew Robinson
4 Little Essex Street, London WC2
Previous page
