VIEWPOINT
The abuse of television
GEORGE GALE
The leftish and trendy bias of television I have always taken for granted, a phenome- non not to be surprised at, something that goes without saying. Most journalists them- selves are leftish, and virtually all television people are trendy; and it is not in the least peculiar that, in consequence, television journalism is both trendy and leftish. The trendy bit we can forget about, except to remark in passing that almost all the trendy people themselves are leftish. It is difficult offhand to think of anyone who is both very fashionable and publicly right-wing. Trendy people on late-night chat shows, to take an obvious if distasteful example, when they venture to express their views on the burning or otherwise issues of the day, can usually be expected to trot out leftish stuff.
A cabaret singer, whose chief claim to fame is that he is a coloured cockney who has from time to time been invited to No 10 Downing Street and who appeared, for no discernible reason, in the last New Year's honours list, delivered a marvellous free com- mercial for the Prime Minister on a Simon Dee programme a week or so ago. In the course of his chit-chat with another per- former who's been to Downing Street this coloured cockney, called Kenny Lynch, appeared to extend an invitation, or to hold out the promise of one, to the American cabaret singer Carol Channing, to visit the Prime Minister's official residence during the course of her stay in London. Quite apart from the lack of manners involved in publicly suggesting he could arrange an invitation, there is a want of modesty. How- ever, show-biz people are seldom intelligent and never modest. I do not much object to the likes of Kenny Lynch and his friend Harry Fowler advertising themselves on the Simon Dee programme. Nor, really, do I object to the natural vulgarity with which they boast their friendship with the Prime Minister: save to remark that the free puff they gave to Harold Wilson is an extreme example of the constant leitish bias of the chat shows.
I might note here that much as journalists themselves tend, in my experience, to be leftish, so, too, do show-biz people, telly personalities and the like, as well, of course, as telly producers and telly directors and telly writers and arty cameramen. The whole -communications set-up slopes leftwards in this country; and it is only the largely Tory prop:ietorship of the press which preserves some semblance of a balance. However, sinze the written word is sadly losing out to the televised rhubarb, the balance must inzrcasingly become lopsided.
It may be that were the government a Conservative one, another characteristic of the television authorities would have the effect of somewhat redressing this lopsided balance. The characteristic I refer to is a natural, or instinctive, respect for, and sub- servience to, authority. I am not sure about this argument: for although the bosses, the authorities, possess this subservience, it may - be that its effect is cancelled out by the in- stinctive iconoclasm of political journalists. This iconoclasm is sadly confined : it does not extend to show-biz, where sycophancy comes very naturally.
We may indeed be very grateful for this iconclasm of political journalists, for without it the leftish and trendy bias of television would have by now have changed from a grievance into a scandal.
To give one example. Last week the Prime Minister was interviewed on This Week by Peter Jenkins, Paul Foot and Charles Doug- las-Home. This week on This Week the Leader of the Opposition is interviewed by the same trio. The political balance of these three comes out, I'd say, slightly to the left of the Labour government. Paul Foot is way out to the left; Peter Jenkins is a moderate, middle of the road, Labour man; and Charles Douglas-Home---who, unlike the other two, is not principally a political writer at all, but is instead an excellent defence correspondent of the Times—is no more than very mildly right of centre. I suppose it could be argued that Paul Foot's form of leftishness made him into an adversary of the Prime Minister. But in this case, a balanced trio to confront Mr Heath should presumably comprise someone way out to the right, a Powellite, say, with a moderate middle of the road Conservative journalist replacing Peter Jenkins, and, say, the mili- tary correspondent of the Guardian. Now I know and admire Peter Jenkins and Paul Foot and Charles Douglas-Home, and it so happens that their natural journalistic iconoclasm, together with the jousting
nature of television interviews, may well have got the better of their political judg. ments. Nevertheless, it is impossible for a journalist to keep the flavour of his political opinions out of television programmes which, by their nature, must be in part un- rehearsed and uncensored.
It so happens that this week, at the same time as This Week, there is a first-class example to band of the subservience of tele- vision officials to government authority. After Mr Heath won the Sydney-Hobart yacht race, he was interviewed by David Coleman on the Sportsnight with Coleman programme. This was very right and proper, for the ocean race is a well-known sporting event and whoever had won it might well have been subsequently interviewed on a sports programme. When the victor is also the leader of the Opposition then purely journalistic considerations make interview- ing him on the subject a desirable scoop. Mr Wilson, however, has had the effrontery to ask for equivalent time so that he can talk sport with Coleman, and again, I do not blame Mr Wilson for asking, any more than I blame people like Kenny Lynch for appear- ing on programmes like the Simon Dee show. But it might be supposed that a sports programme, if nothing else, would be im- mune to political pressure. Obviously not. Mr Wilson's principal historical connection with sport is that he met his wife playing tennis, and his only known game now is golf Off a handicap of eighteen. Had Mr Heath not done so triumphantly in the Sydney- Hobart race, he would not have been inter- viewed on the Coleman programme; and had Heath not been interviewed- then, Wilson would not be having his quid pro quo inter- view this week.
Now of course incidents like this can be identified, and pointed out, and their effects therefore moderated. What is, however, worse and impossible, I'd have thought, to eradicate is the political bias in programmes which are intended neither as direct political propaganda nor as late-night chit-chat. I refer to news and current affairs pro- grammes, and here the leftish infection is, I'd say, endemic. I recall some time ago talk- ing over a lengthy 'documentary' programme on the Vietnam war with John Morgan, who had done the reporting; and I said to him, -apropos of some of the- interviews he had had with some pretty ignorant GIS, that al- though the interviews looked good it seemed to me that his intention in interviewing them and his intention in the whole programme was essentially propagandist. John Morgan was, is, against the war in Vietnam. 'Of course, George,' he replied. 'That was the whole point of the programme.' He may re- gard this as a breach of confidence, which it is of course, but since the trendy left are not at all sound themselves on matters of con- fidence, my conscience is easy.
Now I think John Morgan was being very honest and sensible readily to admit the propagandist quantity of his programme. Were the better-known, and better, journal- ists and producers and directors and editors who work in current affairs television broadly typical, taken all in all, in their mixture of political views of the mixture in the country, or in Parliament, no complaints of bias could be levelled. In my experience. and I have seen a lot of them at work at home and abroad, and I am acquainted with very many of them also, and some of them are among my friends land stay in mY house), they are not at all typical. A very considerable majority among them are of a markedly leftish bias. And this, of course, comes out in the wash, as they intend.
Previous page
