The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

August 1955 CINE TECHNICIAN 115 CINE TECHNICIAN EDITORIAL FREEDOM OF THE AIR WHEN a conjurer is about to borrow your watch, put it in a hat and change it into a rabbit an essential part of his stock-intrade is a flow of patter to divert his audience from too close watchfulness. If the trick happens to be the last item on the programme he may be able to cut some of the patter, relying on the fact that the audience, already receptive after a long show, will hurry to the exits after the trick is over without bothering to be at all critical about what sort of a rabbit he has produced. One wonders whether the Government had this elementary conjurer's psychology in mind when, on the very eve of the Parliamentary long recess and at a moment when the public was busy packing or queueing for its holiday trains, it staged a trick which very fortunately the more watchful members of the audience have found far from amusing. The particular rabbit which the Government has produced from the hat in this holiday moment is an ugly creature whose teeth are sharp enough to gnaw dangerously at the foundations of one of Britain's most cherished freedoms, the freedom of public political discussion. We refer to the directive issued by the Postmaster General to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. regarding the discussion, on the air or on the screen, of matters which are to be, or are being debated in the House or regarding which legislation has been introduced into Parliament. More specifically, as many of our readers will doubtless already be aware, this directive, in the form of an Order in Council, lays down that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. " shall not, on any issue, arrange discussions or ex parte statements which are to be broadcast during a period of a fortnight before the issue is to be debated in either House or while it is being so debated." It then goes on to decree that "when legislation is introduced in Parliament on any subject, the Corporation shall not arrange broadcasts on any such subject by any Member of Parliament during the period between the introduction of the legislation and the time when it receives the Royal Assent or is withdrawn or dropped." That is the rabbit that has come out of the Postmaster General's hat. The watch that went in was, admittedly, an aged timepiece, a gentlemen's agreement under which the B.B.C. during the war accepted limitation of discussion on the lines now laid down in the Order in Council. This agreement has been rigidly observed ever since. The trick perpetrated by the Government on the eve of the recess has been, in short, to change arbitrarily a gentlemen's agreement which could presumably have been freely terminated into an edict with the full force of law behind it. We revert this month to the tradition of publishing an editorial. This will in future be a regular feature of the Journal This new directive is to apply not only to the B.B.C. but to the Independent Television Authority. It therefore becomes of immediate and direct concern to A.C.T. members connected with either form of television. Commentators in other journals have been quick to see an even wider danger. Dingle Foot, for instance, in a closely-reasoned article attacking the Order in The Observer of August 7th, made this very cogent point : " The only defence which anyone has attempted is that the dignity and influence of Parliament would in some manner be impaired if its debates were forestalled by discussions over the air. If this is a valid argument, we should of course reconsider the licence which is given to both newspapers and to the platform. Editors and public speakers habitually anticipate Parliamentary debates. The only distinction is that they are using a different medium and that their words reach fewer people." There, we believe, is the core of the matter. Television, whether from the B.B.C. or from the I.T.A., reaches a far wider section of the public than do the leading articles in the popular Press and in the weekly and monthly journals of opinion. The freedom of the Press itself to report and comment on matters coming before Parliament was only won after long and heroic struggle. Though many politicians and publicists are ready enough to hold up the freedom of the British Press as a shining example to countries that they consider less enlightened and less free, they usually forget to mention that even today that freedom is only maintained as a result of constant vigilance by editors, journalists, proprietors and the general public. The Press is a watchful dog which is not prone to lie still and allow itself to be quietly muzzled. Because of their special status the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. no doubt seem to the muzzlers, whether they be found among the Government or among the leaders of the Opposition, to be easier and safer game. They may, very likely, be considered more important game as well. Furthermore, if the Order is allowed to stand it may well prove the beginning of an attack on freedom of discussion, not only on the air and on the screen but in print and on the public platform, such as has not been since the days when John Wilkes fought his great battle for the freedom of the Press. With the publication of the Government's Order in Council the open danger and the latent threat are obvious. We have been warned. CINE TECHNICIAN Editor: MARTIN CHISHOLM Editorial Office: 2 Soho Square, W.l Telephone: GERrard 8506 Advertisement Office: 5 and 6 Red Lion Sq., W.C.I Telephone: HOLborn 4972