These ‘shy’ TV people must speak up

Press, 7 June 1978, Page 21

These ‘shy’ TV people must speak up

By

KEN COATES

Television One’s advisory committee of 11 worthy New Zealand citizens should stop acting like board members of a select private school and start talking more to the viewers they were chosen to represent.

Although appointed as a “voluntary watchdog” to keep a constant eye on TVl’s programmes, little has been heard publicly from committee members. Few viewers even know who they are. To increase its effectiveness at a time when there is deep concern and widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of television the committee should: :: Open all its quarterly meetings to the news media, including the “Listener.” :: Actively seek closer and more effective communication with pro-gramme-makers. :: Regularly invite viewers from all sections of the community to contribute suggestions, criticism, and questions. :: Explore the possibility of Broadcasting Corporation funds and resources being made available for specific research projects. Both as a response to criticism and in a bid to publicise its work, TVI invited me to attend the last three-monthly meeting at Avalon. It was rather like being taken to a birthday party and being told not to eat any cake. The chairman (Mr Gordon Parry) ruled discussions would be in committee. but that I would be allowed to remain for selected periods, provided I did not report anything that was said. He rejected my suggestion that he adopt the usual procedure when inviting the press to attend meetings — that, when necessary, he discussed in committee confidential matters such as unfinished negotiations, staff appointments, and the like. Here was a journalist invited to Wellington (I

was the only reporter present), at TVl’s expense, to find out the committee’s concerns, current work, and effectiveness. . . and the reporting of its proceedings was banned. One woman member asked anxiously whether a report would be written about the people on the committee and how they spoke. The most charitable view that can be taken of this self-consciousness is that most committee members are unused to a public role. No journalist worth his salt will willingly agree to sitting in on “backgrounding” sessions which can inhibit objective reporting

later — even though it is a familiar public relations Ploy. It was hardly an auspicious start to improving public relations. As it turned out, the session to which I listened consisted of nothing that needed to be kept secret. Subjects included Maori prounciation, rules governing political advertising, TVl’s new natural history unit, local news coverage, children’s programmes and commercials broadcast during them, current affairs, and interviewers. The committee members have adopted various interests. Mr Parry keenly follows current affairs: Mr David Hurley, a Wellington lawyer, is interested in children’s television; an Auckland university graduate, Dr Clare Ward, represents young people: and Mr Norris Collins, a retired trade unionist, keeps an eye on industrial coverage. Mrs Bunty Burbury, of North Canterbury, brings a rural viewpoint to the committee, and is at least one member who has let it be widely known in her

district that she is a viewers’ representative. The committee had invited a Wellington advertising executive to speak on the ethics of advertising — a subject which affects us all. But the chairman requested that I leave the meeting. So we will never know what the ad-man said. One member told me later that the executive was trying to prove how the powerful medium of TV advertising operates for the good of society. The member said that he thought the basic idea was to sell the products advertised. The committee apparently regarded religion as

a safe subject for it allowed me to listen to an address by Father John Coleman, who urged greater support and planning for religious programmes. How does the committee see its role? Its guidelines, adopted when TVI was established, are: 1. To keep under constant review the programmes of TVI and to comment on them to the director-general. 2. To offer advice and make recommendations on programme planning and content. 3. To reflect public opinion on pattern, style, and content of programmes. 4. To consider matters relating to programmes and standards which may be referred to the committee by TVI. The committee resolved to study advertising, ‘‘the integrity and objectivity of the service,” development of New Zealand talent, “and to base its approach on the attitudes and concerns of the average intelligent New Zealander.” (Presumably the average unintelligent New

Zealander is to be igv nored.) What has the committee achieved? Because it has not consistently made public its recommendations we have no way of knowing whether TVI has taken any notice. Mr Parry was asked to list the most significant suggestions on which the channel had acted. He cited injection of “sociological content” into “Close to Home,” and suggestions on training TV journalists and interviewers. Establishing a consumer programme was also mentioned, but what is not clear is whether TVI had this and other developments in mind anyway. A TVI producer, Peter Morritt, says that although he was once invited to meet members of the committee for a chat, its views and recommendations were .not regularly circulated among producers. “We welcome feedback, but there has been virtually no communication between the advisory group and the people who make programmes,” he adds. ' A recent decision that the advisory committee would make closer contact with a number of production teams was a tacit admission that contact with programme-makers had been lacking, Mr Morritt says. The director-general (Mr Allan Morris) is fullsome in his estimation of the value of the advisory committee. He sees it “more in an educative role and able to expand the parameters of consideration.” He describes a paper prepared by Mr Hurley on children’s programme as excellent. Television Two, on the other hand, does not now have a committee of viewers. When restructuring legislation was passed making such a group optional, the TV2 directorgeneral (Mr Alan Martin) dispensed with the idea,

presumably because he did not consider the committee worthwhile. Whether the committee represents all viewers is a moot point. Certainly, on a cursory meeting, most of its members seem to be the same kind of people. Gordon Parry describes them as a “reasonable cross-section of pretty liberal to mostly Rightwing.” The head of public

relations for TVI (Mr Charles Martin) maintains that TVI went to great lengths to find a cross section of viewers. They were more articulate than, say, people living in Porirua, but there were doubts about the value of such viewers on an advisory commmittee anyway. The director-general attends opening sessions of meetings, and either the programme controller or

Charles Martin sits in during other discussions. Mr Des Walker, a TVI administrative officer, is secretary. A strong case can be made for a truly representative panel of viewers regularly analysing and criticising programmes. But to be most effective the panel must be seen to be acting independently and not as part of TVl’s complex organisation. There are encouraging

signs that the advisory committee is gaining confidence. “It now feels there would be merit in making its suggestions, presenting its bouquets, or voicing its criticisms, to the people directly concerned,” Gordon Parry says. To serve the best interests of both viewers and television, the committee would be well advised to shed it modesty and speak up In public.