Editorial: Nothing from Pilkington (1962)

Editorial from the August 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

As readers of the Socialist Standard will know, in all the forty or so years since the beginning of broadcasting in this country, the SPGB has never been allowed by the BBC to state its case on the air. Our many applications have always been rejected. The BBC (like the independent television companies) is under no obligation to give opportunities to us or other small organisations, and as far as we are concerned they have always found lack of “programme interest” or some such reason for not doing so.

It contrasts oddly with the kind of argument advocates of nationalisation were fond of using to the effect that “public ownership” is a protection against the abuse of power by private monopolies. It also contrasts with experience in the USA and Canada where our comrades, and our own members on visits to these countries, have many times put the Socialist case on radio and TV.

When the Pilkington Committee was set up we put in evidence detailing our experience. It appears to have had no effect. In this Report (Paragraphs 294-307) they deal with Party Political Broadcasting, meaning the broadcasts agreed between the “leading political parties” for their own advantage, and do indeed have a few words to say about the question “should minor parties be given the opportunity to broadcast” but this gets nowhere because they decided that it was “impossible to write down an exact definition of a ‘political party’ for the purposes of affording the right to make party political broadcasts.”

They add “it must remain a matter to be settled empirically”—which no doubt will continue to be various reasons for saying no.

So another Committee looks at the question and does nothing. Its predecessor, the Beveridge Committee 1949 did at least tentatively suggest (Paragraph 257) that “it might be reasonable to have something that may be held to correspond to a ‘Hyde Park’ of the air, that is to say, an opportunity for all minorities which have messages, religious or other, on some occasion to put their messages over, not regularly or at length, but some time.”

The fact that the SPGB submitted evidence is recorded in the Report (Appendix B, Page 324) and the evidence itself will be included in an Appendix not yet published.

Editorial: ITV Squeals (1962)

Editorial from the August 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

When big, fat Billy Bunter saw his sausage stolen at breakfast time, he set up an almighty squeal.

And that was what we heard from the independent television companies, and from some of the newspapers which have interests in ITV when the Pilkington report came out.

With one difference. The fat schoolboy never tried to convince everybody else that it was in their interests that he should have the sausage, as well as any bacon that was going.

One of the loudest squeals, as we might have guessed, came from the Daily Mirror: “They tell the public, in 160,000 words, to go to hell.” The Mirror has a big holding in Associated Television.

It is not difficult to find the reasons for these squeals. The Pilkington recommendations, if they are ever fully applied, could mean a lot less profit for some of the independent TV companies, which have been doing so well for themselves.

That was why their shares slumped, the day after the report came out.

Pilkington had some fascinating things to say on the scope, philosophy and responsibilities of broadcasting and, reasonably enough, questioned whether the sheep-like acceptance of the drivel which goes under the name of entertainment on television is really enjoyment.

This part of the report was savaged in the press, by papers which themselves are not slow to pontificate on the responsibilities of giving out public information.

But what really caused a flutter was the Pilkington conclusion that ITV had failed to provide good television because it was too bothered about selling advertising time. With something like a scandalised air, the committee uncovered the fact that the profit motive can be responsible for the deliberate production of something which is mean and shoddy.

Now this is interesting. But it is some thing which Socialists would have thought obvious to everybody.