Persuasion
TELEVISION STUART HOOD
It was impossible to watch this week's Pano- rama without reflecting how the conventions of political broadcasting have changed over the last few years. Not so long ago the Government's decision to apply for entry to the Common Market would have been the occasion for a ministerial broadcast with the Prime Minister banding down ex cathedra statements and generally playing Sir Oracle. Monday's pro- gramme—to the credit of all concerned—was a free and uninhibited exchange such as one would hardly see on any other television net- work in the world; at least I find it difficult to think of any other country where the Prime Minister would be prepared to be grilled by three independent journalists in the studio and (on a Big Brother screen) by one in Paris and another in New York. It was, incidentally, a proof of the technical advances of recent years that James Reston could be brought in by satellite as promptly as could Jean-Claude Servan-Schreiber from Paris—that the former could intervene so naturally in the programme and invite the Prime Minister, in a pleasantly archaic way, to address himself to a number of tricky questions.
The Prime Minister would not have been himself if he had not displayed considerable ability in coping with them, picking up refer- ences and tossing them back, producing evi- dence to back his case as if he had an inexhaustible supply of facts and figures some- where up his sleeve. He would not have been himself either if he had not used the tech- nique of broadening his replies out into vague- ness instead of focusing them into a precise answer. It was, as somebody watching with me said, like watching a man playing cricket with a bat five feet wide—effective but un- satisfying.
Whatever one's views about the quality of the batting, there was about the occasion a certain excitement—a feeling that television has an important part to play in a democracy if freely and responsibly used. A programme of this kind is more valuable as a contribution to political education than any adult education series on political theory in which dons prac- tise for stardom and careers in psephology. It was pleasantly free from that element of niggling that sometimes mars political discus- sion on the air. It was, in fact, an excellent example of the kind of broadcasting which is discussed and advocated in a recent PEP Pamphlet on Citizenship and Television.
This publication stems from a seminar held a couple of years ago and attended by sociologists and researchers from a number of countries both east and west. It is remarkable for two things. Firstly, it abandons what we can now see to be the unjustified pessimism of the 1950s when—particularly in the States- men like Gilbert Seldes thought television must build up a dependent mass audience, unwilling to think for itself and incapable of enjoying positive interests or initiating creative activities. Secondly, it chips away at the theory that, where basic social and political attitudes are involved, the impact of viewing is more likely to lead to a reinforcement of an individual's previous Position than to his conversion to a fresh point of view.' It points out that in a pluralist and adaptive society (the language of sociology is not always elegant) the members of the public often find themselves in indeterminate situa- tions and are open to persuasion towards one solution or another. In the choice of solu- tions television can play a part.
The line of areument I found most interest- ing—coming as it did from a group of people whom one might have expected to incline in another direction—was the following: 'The traditional distinction between the imparting of knowledge and the provision of entertain- ment should be challenged, particularly when it is recognised that those who most lack infor- mation are those who find educative efforts least palatable.' And again: 'There is little doubt that entertainment, creatively conceived, can be as useful as education and should not be despised as a means of providing the equip- ment of the viewer as a citizen.' It is en- couraging to find sociologists, psychologists and experts on audience research coming together with the professional programme-makers in their views as to the aims and uses of tele- vision. It has taken a long time.
Previous page
