Box Populi Time For A Hard Look

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31139, 16 August 1966, Page 8

Box Populi Time For A Hard Look

Asking for more is a favourite pastime of the regional committees set up to advise the N.Z.B.C. on programmes. They want more New Zealand plays on TV, more independent commentary, more material on social .problems, and more interviews. Many viewers would agree with most of these suggestions. But it might be better if these well-meaning committees stopped asking for more, and took time to consider things as they are in New Zealand television, and not what they should be. The field is wide open—the poor standard of interviewing except in the “Town and Around” programmes, the shocking camera work in some issues of “Pictorial Magazine” and “Country Calendar,” and the inept handling of some good programme ideas. A long, hard look at present programmes might be of benefit to all viewers. But it

is doubtful whether most members of the three regional committees are competent to suggest improvements, and how much of their advice would be accepted by the N.Z.B.C. The southern regional committee, for example, seems to have been more concerned with TV advertising than programmes. It has come to the remarkable conclusion, according to its spokesman, that any advertisement intrusions should cause minimum disturbance to the real programme. Viewers worked that one out for themselves a long time ago. “Eye on Medicine” is a current series which could benefit from careful consideration by the programme advisory committees. More programmes on medical research and the treatment of disease in New Zealand are needed. They can be of absorbing interest to viewers, many of whom may be suffering from the particular disease discussed. But the programmes we

have seen so far in “Eye on Medicine” have lacked style. Dullness and awkwardness of presentation, too much talk, and poor photography have detracted from the intrinsic interest of the topics discussed. The questions asked have been obvious in many cases, and the medical knowledge available has not been used to the best advantage. For a series of such importance as “Eye on Medicine” the N.Z.B.C. could have made a better choice than Christopher Pottinger to put the questions to the doctors who appear on the programmes. Mr Pottinger lacks personality, he is a trifle patronising to his audience, and is inclined to assume that all viewers are completely ignorant of medical matters.

Medical men do not speak freely in public; they might respond better to an interviewer who showed a greater grasp of the subjects under discussion. But they would be disinclined to talk to anyone who tries to be informal and addresses a distinguished surgeon by his Christian name as Mr Pottinger does with Mr Rolland O’Regan. Mr O’Regan would have been a far better choice to lead the discussion in “Eye on Medicine.” He knows what he is talking about, and has the gift of explaining medical matters simply and clearly. But perhaps the strange ethical code of the B.M.A. might prevent him placing such a role. Not all the doctors in “Eye on Medicine” have been dull or reticent. One of the best was Sir Horace Smirk, who gave a first-class review of the research being done at Dunedin into the causes and treatment of hypertension. But other doctors had to speak under the cloak of anonymity in spite of the co-operation of the New Zealand branch of the B.M;A., which is acknowledged in the programme. The regional programme advisory committees could well suggest to the N.Z.B.C. that there should be another “Eye on Medicine” series. One committee has a distinguished

surgeon as its chairman. He might be able to persuade his B.M.A. colleagues that Mr O’Regan should conduct the series, and doctors should be named. —ARGUS.