Summing Up The Conference

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30759, 25 May 1965, Page 6

Summing Up The Conference

Something new and surprising was added to the TV programmes I saw last week. It was a production directed by Waldo Maguire. His subject was the four-day annual conference of the Labour Party in Wellington, and I regard his report as a portent and a promise in the field of news and public affairs —a field where the N.Z.B.C. has certain weaknesses. Mr Maguire is the editor of the 8.8. C. television news. He is here for a year as the N.Z.B.C.’s controller of news and public affairs broadcasts.

Since he arrived and surveyed the New Zealand scene he has had some surprises. One thing that has astonished him has been the reluctance of New Zealanders to stand up and talk publicly before the microphone and the camera.

But judging by the changes I have observed creeping into the presentation of news and public affairs on TV Mr Maguire is doing his best to overcome that reluctance. DISCUSSION NEED

I was pleased to learn the other day that Mr Maguire thinks New Zealand needs to have a lot more public discussion on radio and TV on issues of vital interest to the country. In all modesty I must say that I have held the same view for a long time. I have

been critical of the N.Z.B.C. because I think it has been giving us too much of the wrong kind of public discussion.

“Right of Reply” goes part of the way towards intelligent discussion of important subjects; no-one could believe

that the kind of questions dealt with so cheerfully by the “Any Questions” panel or the opinions expressed in “Your View” concern really vital issues in this country.

Mi- Maguire’s effort, “Conference Report,” is not going to change everything overnight. But I think he showed extremely well how to deal with an important political occasion. The report could have been deadly dull; Mr Maguire’s choice of speakers and the subjects discussed made it far more interesting than I expected. I was prepared to concentrate on my knitting when Messrs Nordmeyer and Kirk appeared. Instead I listened to much of what they had to say, and was critical of it. That I should be sufficiently interested in politicians to criticise their remarks indicates how effectively Mr Maguire and his merry men presented their report.

NO GLAMOUR BOYS So far I have not sighted any Harold Wilsons, George Browns or Barbara Castles in the New Zealand Labour Party. But Mr Maguire managed without glamour boys or girls, emphasised the. importance of the issues discussed, and was careful not to give us too many politicians or too many trade unionists. I would not rate all the speeches highly on the extracts I heard, but the report did convey to me the difference between the smooth phrases of the politicians and the unpractised but sincere words of the rank and file, members of the party.

I was impressed by “Conference Report” but not by the commentators who went with it. Nigel Bingham’s task was to link the conference proceedings together. He was fluent and assured but I felt he failed to catch the, spirit of the conference. There were times when he seemed to be speaking from a

script written by someone with no real knowledge of the Labour Party’s politics, its structure or its history. POLITICAL SCIENTISTS We have been promised a similar report on the National Party’s conference in July. 1 hope that if Mr Maguire is the director again he will not make the mistake of having commentators, like Dr. A. V. Mitchell and Professor R. M. Chapman. Dr. Mitchell is a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Canterbury, Professor Chapman is in charge of political studies at the University of Auckland. These two commentators could have rounded off “Conference Report” by taking » hard and critical look at the subjects discussed and the views expressed. Instead they made some colourless remarks which left, me with the impression that everything in the garden was lovely. And there was not much bite in their questioning of Messrs Nordmeyer and Kirk.

I suggest that next time Mr Maguire does not limit himself to political scientists. If he wants more public discus-

sion on vital issues he should look for more critical commentators. 1 don’t see any reason why someone from the National Party side could not examine the Labour Party conference, and a Labour man have his turn in July.

TV With C.C.