Good news and bad about N.Z. television

Press, 19 October 1976, Page 22

Good news and bad about N.Z. television

By

KEN COATES

Television programmes have come in for strong criticism recently, especially for their content of too much violence and undue emphasis on crime and sex. But there are positive factors about New Zealand’s two-channel system. First, having two separate television news services has resulted in a much more searching approach to news and current affairs. Politicians may not have welcomed this, but over all, the viewer has been better informed. For example, under the system of two competing channels, TVl’s “Seven Days” team went to South Africa and produced the first comprehensive New Zealand look at apartheid as it affects sport. Television Two’s “News at Ten” has developed into a topical and informative news and background programme which regularly examines issues both in and beyond New Zealand. But both channels have been light on high quality documentary and hard hitting current affairs programmes, although while working for TV2, Hanafi Hayes, of Christchurch, produced an excellent series on people and places in New Zealand, “One Man’s View.” Television One's “Challenge” senes have been interesting enough, but the emphasis seems to have been rather on making the programme big enough to sell overseas. There is, of course, nothing wrong with aiming production at a quality which will bring overseas sales, but the prime target should

surely be to make documentaries which will be of interest primarily to New Zealand viewers. And they should have a sharp edge of inquiry. Some of the most worth-while programmes on television are imported documentaries, particularly those in the “World in Action” series. Two points emerge here—first-class documentaries are often shown late in the evening, and they are few and far between. Surely there are many more good documentary programmes made which could be bought by the Broadcasting Council. What about those made in Canada, Australia, and the United States? In the current affairs and documentary field, there is a need for more well trained, competent television interviewers. Not all journalists are good interviewers, and not all front-men or performers make effective interviewers. There is a need for more probing, discussing and investigative programmes for those are in the best interests of the public. There are still, for example, few television interviewers who are able to effectively interview the Prime Minister. The politicians may take action to ensure they have political control of television, but is television fulfilling its role in ensuring politicians are accountable to the public? Everyone has his or her favourite imported, Erogramme. I have enjoyed “Kojak,” “Upstairs, •ownstairs,” “Dave Allen,” and sometimes “The Two Ronnies” and Dick Emery.

Then there’s “M.A.S.H.”, “Edwards on Saturday,” Softly, Softly: Task Force,” “Sutherland’s Law,” and the occasional excellent English drama. The American “All in the Family” is also good entertainment with something to say. The two-channel system has stimulated New Zealand production and this should be of benefit to viewers. Two trends have been noticeable—there has been a marked increase in the number of light entertainment programmes, many of which have made poor viewing indeed, and there has been much more drama. The independence of broadcasting attracted a number of highly professional and creative people to New Zealand. Whether they remain under the new Broadcasting Act remains to be seen. Perhaps the finest drama production was TVl’s “The God Boy,” adapted from lan Cross’s novel. Television Two has come up with “The Immigrants” and “Hunter’s Gold,” on which it is rather too early to make a final judgment, and is preparing to make another drama series, “The McKenzie Affair.” The soap opera, “Close to Home,” was begun by TVI to give writers, actors, producers, camera crew and all staff associated with production necessary experience in the techniques involved. “Close to Home” continues to be screened and has built up a number of devoted followers. There is, of course, plenty of scope for the programme to be a more entertaining and interesting New Zealand serial. But at least it’s a start.

Against all this, the existence of two commercial channels has meant that they compete against each other for ratings. And of course the higher the ratings of number of viewers, the more chance of attracting advertising around and during a particular programme. The trouble is that a great many programes produced in the United States and Britain are geared to attract the greatest number of viewers. To do this, they aim at the common denominators of sex and crime. • There’s nothing wrong with treating sex as part of a programme, provided it is dealt with naturally and with dignity. Crime is also part of life which must be reflected in television programmes. What happens, however, is that both sex and crime receive an emphasis which. makes them the main selling points of programmes, and the image presented of the lives of people involved can be false indeed. As for violence in programmes, violence is, unfortunately, part of life, and to ignore it would also be quite unrealistic. But programmes which portray violence as a solution, a sure way out of a difficult human situation, are surely equally as unrealistic. And when in programmes, such as “The Sweeney,” police brutality is accepted and portrayed as normal, and people are treated as less than human beings, reasonable people are entitled to object. One problem about the constant diet of violence even though it may be on the side of

“right” is that we can come to accept it as inevitable. We watch without batting an eyelid when people are beaten up and killed. And when the real thing is shown—oppression. brutality and killing somewhere in a world trouble spot—we sit and accept that without turning a hair as well. Competition for the advertising dollar has resulted in worth-while programmes being slotted against one another—like the well publicised case of “Upstairs, Downstairs” and “Colditz.” W T e have even found quality New Zealandproduced programmes, such as “One Man’s View,” slotted opposite strong, imported programmes. One problem in this country is that we take our television far too seriously. Maybe it is something to do with our geigraphical isolation, but watching the box is a national pastime that consumes a tremendous number of hours of people’s time. The plain fact is that too many of the programmes appearing on television are boring, many have a dreadful sameness, and the good quality programmes with something to say are far too few in number. While the present round of restructuring is under way, the politicians would do well to consider a reorganisation which results in one commercial channel and one channel for documentary, educational and cultural television. Many people would be prepared to pay increased licence fees for more quality.