|
THE GUARDIAN
Tuesday, 9 October 1990
Leading Article:
Partial inanity
THERE are two texts which peers should ponder before Thursday's debate on the Broadcasting Bill. Both were provided yesterday by the Minister in charge of the Bill, David Mellor, in an article for the Guardian. Text one could not be more blunt, or true: "Politicians of all people are the least able to be regarded as impartial, particularly on matters of political controversy." The peers may believe this excludes them, but the amendment on impartiality which they will debate was initiated, drafted and determined by politicians.
Text two is the Minister's warning that any "over zealous or mechanistic" approach by the new regulatory body, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), to the proposed code on impartiality would be disastrous. According to Mr Mellor, the new code will be the product of the ITC, not ministers. "The Bill will not supply them with the answers." But this is precisely what the Bill does do. And, worse still, in a mechanistic manner.
Consider the specifications which the Government's amendment will impose on the ITC's code: it must detail the way in which impartiality should be achieved by different programmes (drama, documentaries as well as current affairs); the timescale by which balance should be achieved; the circumstances under which announcements should be made about forthcoming balancing items; and the prominence (screening time) which the balancing item should receive. This is more mechanistic than a Meccano set. The shadow ITC, for one, believe these specifications are impossible. In a rather belated statement last Friday, the regulatory agency expressed doubts that any code could be constructed which could include in advance and in the abstract conditions about prominence.
Both the Minister and the television industry need rescuing. The Minister has been asked to defend the indefensible. Just a month ago, he described the ideas of Lords Wyatt and Orr-Ewing as "unworkable". Since then, Wyatt and Orr-Ewing have won the behind-the-scenes battle for Mrs Thatcher's ear.
Television is in an even more serious plight. It has been told to chase a myth: the two dimensional issue. But many arguments have more than two sides. Tit-for-tat may rule in Parliament but, in the outside world, issues are often more complex. Programmes cannot be divided into the partial and the impartial. The idea that there must always be balance within a series let alone a single show is absurd. If this is to be the criterion, then say goodbye to One Pair of Eyes, or even the Reith lectures. Say hello, instead, to One Hundred and One Instant Eyes. Or stand by for Arthur Scargill's reply to John Harvey Jones's recent series.
The amendment is an insult to the electorate, runs counter to the deregulatory philosophy which ministers constantly invoke, and provides a lawyers' charter for every disgruntled group in the land. It is both unnecessary and undesirable. For 35 years television has abided by the existing impartiality rules. These rules are already being incorporated into a new code. The code is only one of a clutch of reins a standards council, a complaints commission, an ITC able to impose penalties from a fine to withdrawal of an operating licence for undue partiality. The peers should tell the politicians to move off this futile, meddling patch.
|
|
