Board will not review TV

Press, 12 July 1980, Page 13

Board will not review TV

Review

John Collins

( Having taken into consideration all the complex issues involved in reviewing Thursday night’s television programmes, our reviewing board has decided unanimously not to review them. The decision was made after not watching the programmes it has been decided not to review — complying with the “Death of a Princess” system devised by the board of the Broadcasting Corporation.

The programmes were not watched for two reasons: (a) because there was a possibility that some New Zealanders might not be watching television on Thursday, and it seemed unfair to watch programmes that other people might, often because of circumstances beyond their control, not be able to see; and (b) because a review written after seeing a programme can only be subjective, and it is important to make an objective judgment.

Using for the first time the new. improved Broadcasting Corporationapproved system of reviewing, the reviewing board commissioned experienced reviewing assistants to view the television and prepare reports on the social implications of two pro-

grammes: to examine whether they could dig rut any minority groups, preferably religious, that the programmes might offend; and to search for possible examples of assertions made or conclusions hinted at that might not stand up in a court of law or an O.P.E.C. executive meeting.

Two things should be emphasised about this procedure: (a) The decision not to review is based purely on the reviewing board’s objective assessment of the programmes it did not watch; and (b) The decision not to review has nothing whatsoever to do with threats to cut off oil supplies, the Prime Minister’s wishes, etc. Honest.

The first programme it was decided not to review is “Bless Me, Father” (One), which has been described as “a comedy series about the mischievous Father Charles Duddleswell, a cheerful and wilful eccentric.” (“Listener.”)

Having taken into consideration all the serious and complex issues that came to light in not watching this programme, the reviewing board decided not to review it on the following grounds: (a) Although this programme purports to be a fictional comedy, it is clearly based on the activities of a real priest in that the main character wears priestly clothes, is referred to as “Father.” and spends much of his time in activities obviously based on those of a priest. It was decided that such a dangerous mixture of fact and fiction could be shown only if preceded by repeated warnings and followed by a panel discussion, obviously impracticable; and (b) Serious and complex issues were raised by the portrayal of “Father” Duddleswell as mischievous, cheerful, wilful, and eccentric. A review of a programme in. which such a character is portrayed could only lead to conflict between the general community and New Zealand’s many hundreds of thousands of Catholic priests, only a small proportion of whom are likely to be simultaneously mischievous, cheerful, wilful, and eccentric. The second programme towards which objectivity

was maintained by not watching was "The Other One” (One). Of this the “Listener” reports: “Ralph is brash and boastful and goes through life being avoided by others. Brian is diffident and retiring . . .

They are somehow drawn to one another.”

Serious and complex issues arose during the not watching of this programme because Ralph and Brian are fictional characters based on real-life travelling salesmen, of which there are many hundreds of thousands in New Zealand. There must surely be several dozen clauses in the Race Relations Act, the Human Rights Act, and many, many other acts which might refer specifically to just such a portrayal. Many salesman called Ralph might find their sales dropping away like an Arabian lover’s head if it were alleged within review columns that one such might go through life either alone or accompanied only by a diffident and retiring putative Brian, and locked in a murky relationship, part fact, part fiction, encompassed by “somehow drawn to one another,” the phrase, enough itself to raise serious and complex issues.