The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

March-April, 1953 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN 43 oversight of their programmes and to advise the Postmaster-General on the quantity and withdrawal of licences for new stations, and that the new stations would not be permitted to engage in political or religious broadcasting. During the debate on the matter Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, for the Government, implied that the possibility of such stations coming into existence was some time ahead. He said: " For reasons only too familiar with Hon. Members, arising from our economic circumstances, the B.B.C.'s programme of television development has had to be retarded, and apart from experimental transmissions, very highfrequency sound broadcasting remains a thing of the future. We intend that the B.B.C. shall be allotted the resources to complete its programme of lower-power television stations, and to make reasonable progress with the introduction of high-frequency sound broadcasting before any competitor is admitted to a share of the national resources. What this means in the way of a time-lag it would, as I have indicated, be rash of me to attempt to prophesy." Below we give some evidence against the introduction of sponsored television under four main heads as follows: (1) That it puts the control of ideas into the wrong hands. (2) That the introduction of advertising matter is detrimental to the programmes. (3) That it means that the standards of programmes are lowered. (4) The harmful effects on the population. (1) Sponsored Television puts control of ideas into the wrong hands. The Beveridge Committee laid stress on the fact that " Socially, broadcasting is the most pervasive, and, therefore, one of the most powerful means of affecting men's thoughts and actions." If this is true of sound broadcasting, how much more true is it of television. For two reasons : firstly, the impact of anything seen as well as heard is on most people and on children in particular, far greater than the impact of something only heard — secondly, because so much sound broadcasting is in practice used as a background to other activities and only claims half the listener's attention, whereas television commands his full concentration — frequently for hours together every night of the week. The powerful effect of television was underlined by Mr. Edward Lamb, himself an owner of television stations in U.S.A., who said in the New York Times — 2nd April, 1950, of television station owners in general: " In them alone rests a power of thought control, possibly a power of influencing people greater than ever before vested in any other medium." Once commercially sponsored broadcasting is permitted, it means that this immense power is put in the hands of people whose primary object is not good broadcasting but the desire to sell goods. Among the undertakings who are pressing hardest for commercial broadcasting in this country are Messrs. Lever Bros, and Unilever Ltd., Horlicks Ltd., and Rowntree and Co. In the joint Memorandum submitted by these three firms to the Beveridge Committee, the plea for radio advertising is made mainly on the grounds that this medium would increase their efficiency " by creating a steadier demand on which to plan production economically, by enlarging the total market, and by reducing wholesalers' and retailers' costs through faster turnover." Their attitude is further expressed in the following passage: " We believe that overseas experience has now shown that most of the objections which have been voiced against commercial radio are largely without substance. Although broadcasting is a very powerful medium of expression, the danger that commercial interests will assume too much power over the medium has not materialised. . . . The use of sheer power for commercial advantage is simply bad business. A distinction between power and efficiency is, moreover, being increasingly made nowadays and the business which becomes large, including large in its use of advertising, on the basis of efficiency in the full sense, including human relations, is surely a social asset." We can gather from this at least that, firstly, these firms see nothing wrong with the level of sponsored programmes in America, and secondly, that businesses as Unilevers are regarded as a " social asset." Can we expect beneficial results from sponsors who start from these standpoints? In practice, however, sponsored programmes would be largely in the hands of the advertising industry as they are in America. The Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising were careful to admit that " the majority of programmes broadcast from America's many stations are framed to meet American tastes and would not be acceptable in this country," and to stress that British commercial broadcasting would have to reach a " high level " in order to achieve its objects. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe expressed the same point of view when he said that the British were a " much more mature and sophisticated people " than the Americans and added, " Is it really to be suggested that such a people as ours are unfit to decide what they want to see on the air? " The answer to this is clear. It will not be the British people who will decide, but the advertisers. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the American people do not decide either. As the Chancellor of the University of Chicago said: " American radio is not made in the ima^e of the American people. It is made in the image that advertising men would like to create. The radio industry disclaims any obligation to improve people's taste. Actually they know well that they are degrading it." (Quoted by the Bishop of Sheffield, 22nd May, 1952). The form that this degradation takes, why it happens, why it is particularly likely to happen in television as opposed to sound broadcasting, is dealt with below. (2) The effect of introduction of advertising matter into television programmes. It is difficult for British listeners to appreciate the persistent and obtrusive character of advertising on radio or television once these are in commercial hands. In a survey conducted by Walter Kingson (Associate Professor of the Theatre Arts Department of the University of California) into the content of TV programmes in New York City during the week of 4th January to 10th January 1952 (quoted in "Cine-Technician," SeptemberOctober, 1952), it was found that 8 per cent of total programme time was taken up with primary advertising which means one minute in every twelve or thirteen. A similar week the year before showed