I.T.C. suggests ways to control channel

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33062, 1 November 1972, Page 2

I.T.C. suggests ways to control channel

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, October 31.

Seven “simple guidelines” to guarantee the public a choice of programmes under a competitive television system were outlined by the spokesman for the Independent Television Corporation (Mr G. W. J. Dryden) today.

Mr Dryden was making submissions for 1.T.C., which is seeking the warrant for a second television channel. The Broadcasting Corporation has also applied for the warrant.

The submissions are being heard by the Broadcasting Authority. Mr Dryden said that:— The authority should lay down a minimum percentage of New Zealandmade programmes between 6.0 p.m. and 10 p.m. each night—“and for a start I suggest one and a half hours." News and current affairs programmes should be run at different times on each channel and “we are prepared to negotiate with the N.Z.B.C. or give them first choice.” Once those time slots had been chosen, neither operator should be permitted to move his news or current affairs programmes to the same time as his competitor. The authority should stipulate the maximum number of feature films permitted on each channel in a week. Educational programmes in the afternoon should appeal to different population segments and should be run at different times on each channel. In the evening viewing, the authority should rule that no New Zealandmade programme should run on one channel at the same time as a New Zealand programme of the same type on the

other channel. Programme schedules should

be submitted to the authority in advance, to guarantee that the war-rant-holder is fulfilling the balance commitment he placed in his application and to ensure that the other six stipulations are being carried out Mr Dryden said I.T.C. was fully prepared to pay all the cost of installing the second channel transmitters throughout New Zealand. Earlier, the N.Z.B.C. had quoted a figure of $1.75m as the minimum annual amount it would charge I.T.C. for a transmission service.

I.T.C. had received quotations for installing transmitters for about slm less than the N.Z.B.C. was quoting. Mr Dryden ended his written evidence —■ more than 60,000 words of it—by saying that in a free society standards should be raised by choice and not compulsion. “Would return” In evidence, Dr Austin Mitchell said today he would be willing to return to New Zealand to work for I.T.C. Dr Mitchell was the moderator of the N.Z.B.C. current affairs programme, “Topic,” in 1967, before returning to his native England. He said that before returning from England to give evidence as a witness for LT.C. at the hearing, he talked to a score of other New Zealanders working in British television. About a third of them said they would not consider returning to New Zealand, he said. About the same proportion are in Britain for experience and would return home eventually. The final third said an improvement in salaries in New Zealand and a choice of employer would be a big influence on their decision. A second channel controlled by the N.Z.B.C. would create an undesirable media monopoly, do nothing to improve the pay and conditions of television staff, and provide no guarantee of increased quality and appeal in programmes, said Dr Mitchell, who works for the 8.8. C.

“Cheapest method” The only advantage of having the N.Z.B.C. control the second channel was that it would be the cheapest method of extending television services in New Zealand.

“A second competitive channel, properly controlled, would offer a choice of programmes to the greatest possible proportion of the population, stimulate both the organisations running channels, and make the most substantial contribution to the development of television as an industry,” Dr Mitchell said.

Dr Mitchell said proper controls would ensure the maintenance of programme standards, avoiding problems and abuses which could be produced by competition in television. The N.Z.B.C. had to its credit the tremendous achievement of introducing television to New Zealand and had served this country well.

"Yet I feel strongly that it is in the interests of New Zealand as a nation, New Zealanders as viewers, and the corporation itself, that the second channel should not go to the N.Z.8.C.,” said Dr Mitchell. If the N.Z.B.C. had no competition it would find it easier to play safe than to take initiatives and risks. Dr Mitchell also cited the dangers of the corporation structure and said that true independence for the N.Z.B.C. was impossible in a political system as intimate as New Zealand’s. U.S., Aust. Dr Mitchell said it was noticeable that critics of commercial television tended to draw their examples from either Australia or from the United States.

His own experience in Britain’s independent television system had been rather different. “The excellence of British television is due not only to the existence of competition but to the controls which eliminate the worst dangers of a competitive situation and prevent the deterioration of the lowest common denominator television character of much American programming.” Continuous supervision was necessary in a commercial televideo system, Dr Mit-

chell said. He suggested that in New Zealand this could best be done by the Broadcasting Authority. “Such supervision could well apply to both organisations holding television warrants.”

He also suggested that the authority might control and run the transmission facilities, with both broadcasting organisations paying rent for them.

“This would be one way to avoid any problems of partiality in allocation or charging,” he said.