Pu ff' Direct T icu: Observer last Sunday reported two de- velopments
in its contest with the Society of West End Theatre Managers, who had with- drawn their advertisements out of resentment at criticisms in 'Mr. Puff's Theatre Guide.' The Royal Commission on the Press have invited both parties to give evidence, 'indicating that this would assist the Commission in its con- sideration of the relationship between editorial policy and advertising revenue': and the Theatre Managers' Society has lodged a complaint with the Press Council.
As there is no point in having two separat inquiries into the issue, it should be left to th Royal Cotpmission. But in any case, the Pre Council ought to have told the theatre manage firmly that it could not have considered thei case, because it was presented only after the had .attempted duress—the withdrawal of ad vertising—had failed.
Admittedly there are a few who believe in th theory that when a show has been put on, an when the critics have done their worst followin the opening night, it should not be hammere in retrospect. The late James Agate, if memor serves, was persuaded with the help of a solici- tor's letter to desist from continually reminding his readers of what he considered to be the Outrageous silliness of French Without Tears, during its long run. Mit this is a bad precedent; and it is particularly bad where it prevents criticism of a once fine production which has been allowed to deteriorate (this being the gist of the Observer's criticism of My Fair Lady). On the contrary, newspapers which run theatre guides of this kind have a duty to express their opinions of any such deeline forcibly. So the Observer will be on firm ground if it presents its case to the Royal Commission, but declines to have anything to do with the Press Council, should the Council be unwise enough to take the matter up.
Previous page
