|
THE GUARDIAN
Friday, 24 August 1990
Georgina Henry looks at Lord Chalfont's key position as deputy chairman of the IBA and member of the ITC
Peer's lead role in 'bias' debate
LORD Chalfont, who yesterday resigned as a consultant for a firm offering help to TV companies to win back their franchises, was appointed deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in January last year.
His appointment provoked controversy because of his links with private security firms and rightwing political groups, and his outspoken views on leftwing "bias" in the media.
But since Lord Chalfont joined the IBA, criticism has diminished because of his increasing involvement in the radio, rather than television, side of the IBA's activities. In September last year, he was appointed chairman of the Radio Authority, the new body which will regulate commercial radio, although he will still be a member of the Independent Television Commission, the new body awarding TV franchises.
Lord Chalfont has avoided public comment in recent rows about alleged political bias by broadcasters.
When he joined the IBA he said he no longer had links with the Media Monitoring Unit, the organisation he set up in 1985 with Julian Lewis (now with the research department at Conservative Central Office) to monitor alleged leftwing bias in the media. This organisation produced a report earlier this year accusing BBC Radio 4's Today programme of anti-government bias. Lord Chalfont has not commented on this or on controversies closer to the IBA: attacks by politicians on Granada's World in Action and on Yorkshire Television over Shoot to Kill, a dramatic reconstruction of the Stalker affair. On each occasion the IBA backed the ITV companies.
More recently, however, Lord Chalfont has played an important role in the controversy about impartiality, a central issue when the Lords debated the Broadcasting Bill.
After amendments tabled by Lord Wyatt of Weeford, a critic of the BBC and some ITV companies, and by Lord Orr-Ewing and Baroness Cox, the Government has said it will amend the bill to "strengthen the provisions on impartiality".
Lord Chalfont said in the Lords he had "broad sympathy" for Lord Wyatt's views, although he put the IBA's view that the bill did not need changing and indicated the areas that a new code on impartiality, to be drawn up by the television commission, will cover.
Lord Wyatt withdrew his amendments when the Home Office said it would put forward its own. Broadcasters are so concerned at developments, which they say will make broadcasters reluctant to tackle controversial issues for fear of legal challenge, that a debate will take place tomorrow at the Edinburgh Television Festival.
The Home Office is believed to have hoped that the part of the bill dealing with impartiality would pass through the Lords, as it did through the Commons committee, without pressure for amendment.
But it was clear months ago that Lord Wyatt, a close friend of the Prime Minister, was determined to try to stiffen the bill.
The Home Office has simply promised to "indicate on the face of the bill" the areas that it expects the television commission code to cover less than the amendments proposed by Lords Wyatt and Orr-Ewing.
But pressure on the Home Office has been increased by an early day motion signed by 113 Tory MPs after the Lords debate, urging the Government to bring in tighter controls. Simon Clark, who was responsible for the Media Monitoring Unit report attacking Today, said there had been attempts by broadcasters to make out that the unit was behind the amendments, but this was not so.
He denied the unit helped brief Lord Wyatt and Lord Orr-Ewing.
Programme makers have meanwhile expressed reservations about the role the IBA has played. In an effort to prevent the Wyatt/Orr-Ewing amendments being passed, Lady Littler, the IBA's director general, has prepared a briefing paper for the Lords. This said the IBA believed the bill as drafted already offered "appropriate safeguards" for impartiality. But it listed the areas which its code on impartiality would cover.
The IBA believes the best way to confront hostility to broadcasters is to try to convince critics that it is preparing a strong code. The briefing paper sent to the Lords was tougher than at least one draft circulating in the IBA beforehand.
Privately, programme makers have criticised the IBA for "political ineptitude" in detailing areas the code will restrict, rather than defending existing practice. They also blame the ITV Association, which represents all the ITV companies, for failing to prepare its own briefing paper before the debate. Instead, ITV managing directors agreed that the IBA's paper was sufficient and accepted that Lord Chalfont would speak on the IBA's behalf in the debate.
|
|
