Film and TV Technician (1957)

164 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN December 1957 WHERE DOES TV GO FROM THE first shots are being fired on the future of television. It is soon * enough, but not too soon, for the B.B.C. Charter expires in 1962 and the Charter of the I.T.A. in 1964. That sounds a long way off but the almost certain Royal Commission, and drafting and debating the legislation which have to precede the new patterns will between them occupy a considerable amount of time. Organisations directly and keenly concerned, which of course include A.C.T.T., should therefore soon start giving thought to what their policies will be. One thing is certain. Policies which may have been right at the time when the introduction of commercial television was being debated are now in many respects out of date. The B.B.C.'s monopoly has been broken and there will be few advocates of its restoration. Competitive television in some form or another is here to stay. Let us consider some recent pronouncements. First, Gerald Beadle, Director of B.B.C. Television Broadcasting, speaking at a Radio Industries Club luncheon on 30th October said that the function of the B.B.C. Television service would be so different from that of commercial television in the future that only in the most superficial sense would they be regarded as alternatives. Educated Democracy It would be a mistake, Mr. Beadle said, to expect commercial television to be " a reflection of the advancing tastes and aspirations, or of the perplexities, of an educated democracy in the making." Its programmes, he implied, were to cater for the mass audience while, on the other hand, the B.B.C. did not have to sell their product to anyone and could concentrate on audiences in the plural. Mr. Beadle continued : "We measure our successes and failures to a large extent by whether or not we achieve the appropriate audience for each programme." The B.B.C, he said, would devote itself to a modern, up-to-date channel devoted to satisfying the requirements of an educated democracy-in-the-making. In other words, it seemed that Mr. Beadle was saying that commercial television could concentrate on broad, popular entertainment for the masses, bringing the advertiser in touch with the large audience essential for effective sales promotion, while the B.B.C. would reflect the British way of life at its best, with particular proej amines to appeal to particular audiences. This at once brought a broadside By the GENERAL SECRETARY from Sidney Bernstein, who says that when it comes to quality Granada will match the B.B.C. production for production. He will have nothing of Mr. Beadle's blast about I.T.V.'s role as entertainer to the lowest common denominator. Herbert Morrison, M.P., former Home Secretary, in a speech on 9th November hit another angle. He attacked commercial television as " wholly inflationary ", and THE observer reported him the next day as saying : " Commercial television has duplicated capital costs in a field where technical labour supply is not plentiful. It is lowering our standards and facing the B.B.C. with rt dilemma as to whether it should depreciate its own standards or face the possibility of lessening its number of viewers. " The Television Act was a bad departure from television as a public service as compared with television chasing 'circulation' irrespective of standards and taste." Wedgwood Benn Finally, we come to Anthony Wedgwood Benn, M.P., who writes a thoughtful article in the socialist digest for November. He puts forward a proposal that the whole of Britain's radio and television services should be run by four public corporations, all having a share in the licence fee and allowed to accept advertising. He wants the new public service based on four principles : 1. The continued expansion of tht TV s( rvice. 2. The continuation oj full public control oj all technical until* is. through tin Postmaster General. HERE? 3. The maintenance of an element of public service in the operation of all stations. 4. The maximum of competition in order to maintain the integrity and creativeness of programmt staff and the best choice for tin viewer and listener. His four public corporations would be as follows : First, the B.B.C, which would broadcast two basic national programmes in sound only, rather like the Home Service and the Third Programme. This should be able to be picked up all over the country. The B.B.C would also handle all overseas broadcasting as it now does. New Corporation Secondly, there should be a new corporation established called the " Independent Broadcasting Authority" (I.B.A.), which would take over the Light Programme as a second competitive national programme. It would also be responsible for technical co-operation with the regions. The regions would be completely autonomous and free to make their own network arrangements. Local V.H.F. broadcasting would also be stimulated by the regions. Thirdly, B.B.C. television should be hived off as the British Television Corporation (B.T.C). This would broadcast one or more national programmes and would be responsible for foreign links, like Eurovision. It would be completely autonomous. Finally, the I.T.A. would be strengthened and given the right to produce its own programmes. It would also be given a greater authority over the programme companies. The exact nature of this relationship would be left open for negotiation. There is one further point, mentioned by none of the foregoing protagonists but which deeply concerns us as Trade Unionists. The B.B.C, despite the terms of its Charter and despite recommendations of the Beveridge Report, remains one of the most reactionary and impossible of employers. Commercial Television, on the other hand, albeit after some pressure, (continued on page 16s)