Playing election games
Grace Wyndham Goldie
There are two mysteries about the Government White Paper on the future of broadcasting. One is why it has been so long delayed. The second is why the Government wants (or says that it wants) to hand the so-called 'fourth' television channel to a new body, the Open Broadcasting Authority, which, until now, has simply been a gleam in the eyes of two young men, both of whom were members of the BBC television department of which I happened to be head.
There's no secret about who they are. First, Tony Smith, one-time television talks production assistant who eventually left television, returned to Oxford to do some research and, in the intervals between his travels, writing and general freelance activities is now campaigning enthusiastically for the setting up of the OBA. He had already persuaded the Annan Committee to adopt the idea in principle and is named (page 234 of the Report) as its chief begetter. And, astonishingly, it turns up this week as the main recommendation contained in the Government White Paper.
I say 'astonishingly' because, to my mind, the whole Open Broadcasting Authority idea has never been adequately criticised. The sketchy pages in the Annan Report which dealt with it, the multitude of 'hopes' and 'mays', particularly in regard to its shadowy financial arrangements, meant that many informed people thought it the least valuable section of the Report. So it was generally brushed aside and regarded as something which need not be taken seriously. Why then has the Prime Minister (we all now know that Mr Callaghan himself chaired the Cabinet Committee which has been considering the future of broadcasting) taken it so seriously that he has turned it from a vague idea into an important piece of Government policy?
But before I come to that mystery let me turn to the second of the duopoly of young men who have been lobbying, apparently successfully, for the idea. He is Philip Whitehead, also at one time a television producer in the same department, also a member of the Annan Committee, a university wit who left television, not for any academic retreat but for politics and now Labour MP for Derby North. He is as likeable and talented as Tony Smith, but more of a mystery. For though he is actively
supporting the creation of an Open Broadcasting Authority and realises that this 1011 require money from the taxpayer, as well as some television resources, he is also arguing, powerfully in the press for the televising 0' the proceedings of Parliament. And he wants sufficient television time for the cameras to reflect the workings of Pat liament more adequately than the sound only snippets already being transmitted. But it is difficult to see how the government could possibly encourage the developnlent of such a service, with its financial demands as well as its new demands on television time and resources in addition to those necessary for an Open Broadcasting Authority. I myself believe that the televising ol Parliament is inevitable, and more important than creating a new Authority If a choice has to be made between them on grounds of expense and resources. Whleb brings me back to Mr Callaghan, the White Paper and the mystery of the government. 5 declared policy with its minimal changes in the status quo except that of giving gov.ernment blessing to the creation of the Open Broadcasting Authority. Nobody is less likely than Mr Callaghan to treat broadcasting, particularly television broadcasting, carelessly. He knows and understands television far better than n1°.s,t politicians. He has realised, as Harold Wilson never did, that the effective use of television depends less on mastering Ita mechanics and techniques — for instance how to read from a teleprompter, how t° judge the proper length of music over title sequences — than on the opportunity television offers of talking to each voter in hls home and creating in each individual a feeling of trust in the character of the man, asking for the kind of power which coula affect everybody's daily life. Trust in his character was just what Richard Nixon never managed to communicate. And at a moment when the Conservative Party is handing over its political communications to a firm of professional advertisers and creating much the same impression as the Nixon machine did, i.e. that politicians could be sold like soap and, by artificial means, project a eila.rls: matic and totally false image of a
political
leader, Mr Callaghan clearly felt that it was important not only for himself as the leader of a party but for the country, to seem t° embody the dependability which marlY v°,t: ers could understand better than tri` detailed policies of the party as a whole' All of which makes me believe that the content and timing of the White Paper has very little to do with the quality of broaacasting, or the hope that a new outlet for the talents of more people could be valuable— the main justifications put forward in Annan for the creation of an Open Broad casting Authority. I believe that what he Is doing is quite simply trying to dish the Tories and keep his options open. In fact. it s just part of the election campaign. Considert the whole political manoeuvering aboti broadcasting since March 1977 when the Annan Committee presented its report to Parliament. The Conservative Party has always made it clear that it wanted the fourth channel to be allocated to the IBA and the great commercial television companies. The Labour Party has kept so relentlessly silent about its broadcasting policies that it was possible to wonder whether it had any broadcasting policy at all. Then, at long last, comes this White Paper. It was issued most strangely on the eve of a Parliamentary summer recess which Michael Foot had told the House would continue until 24 October. At which point the House hooted with laughter — as, hapCOY, we could hear for ourselves because the sounds of Parliamentary occasions of this kind are now available to broadcasters.
Why the laughter? Because the House knew, and knew that Mr Foot knew, that a general election before 24 October, miracles apart, was as certain as most things and that everybody was preparing for Mr Callaghan to make a statement in August or September which would make an election Possible, as generally expected, at, or around, Thursday 12 October. What Mr Callaghan has done, it seems therefore, by eliberate procrastination and skilful timing, is ensure that there can be no legislation about broadcasting before the election. If he loses the election the White Paper is irrelevant anyway. Conservatives could, and almost certainly would, ignore it and allocate the fourth television channel to commercial interests. If he wins he could always say that circumstances have changed so greatly since 1978 when he issued the White Paper that it is impossible to be bound by what at that time seemed proper action. And circumstances are certain to
change. After all, even the most devoted Open Broadcasting Authority enthusiasts do not believe that it can be practically effective until the mid-Eighties. By then, I believe, there will inevitably be developments — not only concerning the televising of Parliament, but also the addition of local television to local radio.
Seen in the light of all this, the White Paper seems unnecessary. Why didn't Mr Callaghan simply maintain the year-long silence which the Labour Party had maintained since March 1977? Because, I suggest, that would have laid him open to attack — before the election — by Conservatives on the grounds that he was denying everybody — not only the IBA and the commercial television companies but also viewers —of more programmes at little or no apparent cost and, it appeared, for no valid reason.
By putting forward such an innocuous, if impractical, solution as the Open Broadcasting Authority, one which he can always repudiate if he should win the election, Mr Callaghan has provided himself with an answer to any Conservative attack while at the same time justifying his refusal to hand the fourth television channel to commercial interests. Thereby, presumably, pleasing all sections of his own party.
Well, as they say, that's life. And the fact that major decisions about broadcasting, which affect not only the conduct of elections but the enjoyment of millions are taken for reasons of political expediency doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong. Do you remember, for instance, the Television Act of 1954? And the motives of the Conservative Party for the crucial decision that a commercial television service should be started in this country?
Previous page
