TV Questioning Attacked

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31586, 25 January 1968, Page 11

TV Questioning Attacked

I.V.Z.P A -Reuter—Copyright > LONDON, Jan. 24. Britain’s commercial television was yesterday reported organising an inquiry into complaints that public figures were questioned too fiercely on the screen. At the centre of controversy, and not for the first time, was an interviewer, David Frost, who at the age of 28 rates as the nation’s foremost television inquisitor and arch debunker of authority. Press reports said the Independent Television Authority, the body that regulates television, was about to investigate the Frost Programme. An I.T.A. spokesman declined to confirm the report but said an inquiry was possible. >• , j

) Criticism of Frost comes on two fronts. One is that! interrogation of persons in-) Ivolved in prominent scandals) imay—in the name of entertainment—erode rights built] deeply into the British legal system. The other criticism is that intensive quizzing of politicians in front of a warmedup studio audience could degrade serious issues to the I level of a contest for the loudest laugh. Twice recently on the Frost Programme people brought ■ before Frost were subsequently arrested and hauled into court. One was Dr Emil Savundra, the former head of an insurance ! company that went bankrupt. ] The other was Dr John Petro,, accused of drug offences. An article in the “Daily Express” by a former tele-]' vision producer, James J Thomas, recalled the strict.; British rules against com-|> menting on current cases li

still before courts. Thoinas| ; suggested that a potential suspect's performance before) a highly professional tele-l vision inquisition could affect! ! the views of a future jury. ! On the other front, a big flurry was stirred last month by Frost’s interview with the Defence Minister, Mr Denis Healey. The screen exchanges were acid—particularly after Frost suggested that Mr Wilson’s aides had been leaking confidential Cabinet discussions. A transcript of the Healey interview was afterwards taken by helicopter to Mr Wilson at his Scilly Islands holiday resort. Newspapers ) reported that legal action was being considered. The political correspondent. David Wood, wrote in “The I Times”: "Granted that the ) principal aim of the pro- ■ gramme is entertainment . . ~ I the effect may scarcely be, I otherwise than to debase the!

iipolitical subjects under discussion and to pander to the {prejudice and ignorance of a mass audience. 1 “We are given pop politics where the show business qualities of the performers . come to be more important and more successful than deep knowledge or long experience—where the smart retort matters more than sound sense where the ' argument is won by the last laugh.” The question remains why prospective victims consent to ' face the ordeal. i “Is it vanity?" asked Anne ; Scott-James in the “Daily ( Mail”. "Or jealousy of colleagues who are stealing the I limelight? Or a genuine wish to persuade?" She suggested that Ministers should be allowed to stipulate the questions. “1 ■ would also.” she said, “ban I studio audieyes.”