Need for second TV channel questioned

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32460, 21 November 1970, Page 2

Need for second TV channel questioned

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 20.

The wisdom of establishing a second television channel in New Zealand in the near future was questioned by the managing-director of 8.8. G. Television (Mr Huw Wheldon) today.

He told the New Zealand Broadcasting Authority’s second channel inquiry that he considered the “real decision” for the country was whether to establish a second channel, or convert the existing one to colour. “I think this is a rather moot point,” he said, during cross-examination by the counsel assisting the Authority (Mr J. G. Rabone). He did not elaborate on the question, but said that if the aim was to please most of the people most of the time, there had to be two channels controlled by the one organisation. On his statement that Public Service Television faced two enemies—Government and commerce—he said he had no doubt that the New Zealand Government, like the British Government, wanted to exercise more

power through television. “That is the nature of governments,” he said. Mr Wheldon said the 8.8. C., by increasing its staff by about 70 per cent was able to produce enough news and current affairs programmes for two channels. During resumed crossexamination by Mr I. L. McKay, counsel for the Associated network group, he refused to be budged on his contention that it was impossible to have complementary and competitive television at the same time. He denied that it was unreasonable or irresponsible of him to say the group’s case did not stand up to examination after studying its submissions for only 45 minutes. “HIS EXPERIENCE” His comments on the threat from commerce were an assumption based on his experience in Britain, “but which seems to be borne out by what is going on in New Zealand.” He agreed that

the majority of people in Britain at present would be opposed to a monpoly by the 8.8. C. in television;

Re-examined by Mr R. B. Cooke, Q.C., counsel for the ; N.Z.8.C., Mr Wheldon, said it would be unreasonable to expect that in the 10 years television had been going in New Zealand, producers would have risen to the top of the administrative side. The editor of the Roman Catholic weekly, “Tablet,” Mr J. P. Kennedy, questioned in evidence whether the introduction of a second channel was justified “at this present critical stage in our economy.” - “I would argue that it is not, and that it is a luxury that we simply cannot afford at present,” Mr Kennedy said. He said he found it incredible that at a time when schools were short of money, teachers underpaid, and social services working on a shoe-string, that anyone should blandly contemplate sinking new capital into such ventures.

The companies U.E.8., Watties, Wright Stephenson, and ■ Kerridge-Odeon had tremendously wide interests, and were deeply affected by the political and economic developments in the life of the nation.

They were less in a position to be impartial than the “much-maligned” newspapers when it came to commenting on, or seeking to influence the course of Government decisions,” Mr Kennedy said. “I am prepared to accept the sincerity of the Associated Network sponsors. I am not prepared to accept that they can make their submissions become a reality,” he said.

During 10 years in Australia he had seen competing channels, in the search for ratings support, having to pander to the lower common denominator in programme content. “The men concerned—for all their good intentions—in effect became the prisoners of the system they created.” CITY COUNCILLOR

Mrs H. L. Garrett, a member of the Literary Fund advising committee, and a Christchurch city councillor, said that a private television channel would not improve the quality of television. She was in favour of a second channel, but it would be useless to have one if it merely repeated present programmes. She favoured the N.Z.B.C. as the operator of a second channel so complementary programmes could be provided.

“I feel that if private enterprise was running a second channel with advertising, the net result would be a reduction in N.Z.B.C. revenue and two channels of indifferent value,” she said. Mr A. W. Mann, a chartered accountant, and a member of various Christchurch musical groups, said a second channel should provide a complementary and alternative programme.

There was a better chance of this being achieved if one operator controlled both so one was hot competing against the other, Mr Mann contended. In evidence, Mr J. C. Alabaster, an Invercargill teacher and former New Zealand cricket representative, said that more television would provide a greater intrusion.

Any second channel should provide a complementary programme and not promote the situation in Australia where similar programmes were run at the same time. Public interest would be best served If the N.Z.B.C. was the second channel operator, he said.

The inquiry continues on Monday. '