Symposium on 1968 Sir: In your issue of 29 December,
I was surprised to see Randolph Churchill raising the tired old gimmick about heavy taxes on commercial tele- vision being the answer to Fleet Street's present economic ills.
Imposing heavy taxes upon commercial television will do nothing to help the plight of failing news- papers. Their loss of advertising is primarily due to the fact that fewer people are reading them. The restoration of high circulations therefore is something only proprietors and their editors can achieve. Punitive attacks on ay are totally irrele- vant in this respect. Of course, newspapers are vital in any democratic society but they should be capable of standing up on their own merits. Once you start subsidising them, directly or in- directly, you destroy their independence. Their current problems are largely self-inflicted through years of neglect and weak management. Even with current shrinking circulations they could be made more viable by simply charging an economic price to their readers. This, as we all know, they have not had the guts to do in the past and they have been prevented from doing so at present by Mr Aubrey Jones.
A final brief word about advertising revenue. Contrary to popular belief, advertisers do not splash their money around indiscriminately. They want, as far as possible, value for every pound invested. At this present moment, in advertising value, commercial television can beat the press hands down. It seems an extraordinary proposition to penalise TV companies because of this fact.
Previous page
