‘Fair Go’ gives signs of drifting into no go

Press, 30 April 1981, Page 15

‘Fair Go’ gives signs of drifting into no go

Review

Garry Arthur

“Fair Go” (One, Tuesday) is a good idea which has lost some of its impetus. Even a country as small as New Zealand must have many more outrageous, extraordinary, funny or unhappy injustices to sustain such a programme than “Fair Go” has managed to present lately. And television is just the sort of medium to bring them out; in theory, anyway, “Fair Go” should be selfgenerating, and should be getting better and better. It had some 7 good causes this week, but the treatment seemed a bit superficial. Take the poor man in Glen , Eden, for example, with his $1137 bill for common old . tap water. The local authority said there must be a leak on his property; he was adamant that there was not. Surely, to give the complainant a fair go, “Fair Go” could have looked into it and let us know one way or the other. It has the resources and would have produced a much better story by using them. Some of the zing has gone

out of the programme, and the sartorial splendour of Hugo Manson trying to outdress the spectacular Judith Fyfe (some chance!) is not enough to bring it back. Perhaps we are missing the effervesence of Sharon Crosbie; or maybe it’s the inspired clowning of Michael Wilson that “Fair Go” needs to bring back for its light relief. They did try bn Tuesday with a final light-hearted investigation of an alleged dark plot by trouser-makers to save money by skimping on the length of the zip. The complainant was an associate professor of anatomy, no less, who should have known whereof he spoke, but in spite of his offer to explain the “anatomical connotations of this agony” off-camera, it seemed that he was a victim — not of the manufacturing cheapskates — but of those who dictate style. He will just have to grin and bear it. Top item of the night was the revelation that a rental car company could not live up to its advertised promise

to provide a car for one-way hire anywhere in New Zealand. Although the managing director declined to appear (he dislikes the programme) he did answer questions, and the recitation of his answers

was quite telling enough without seeing the man. The company could not deliver what its advertising promised, and didn’t even expect to. The implication was that it was unreasonable of the public to expect it too, as well. A nice open-and-shut case for “Fair Go,” and perhaps it is unreasonable to quibble about uneven standards, but the item about a smelly stockyard in Cromwell hardly deserved air-time; it certainly seemed extravagant bringing the two complainants up to Wellington. It is understandable that Brian Edwards should want to return to the limelight after a time in the backroom wilderness, but isn’t he really wasted on “Fair Go”? He has interviewing skills of a high order, and current affairs could find plenty of

use for him in an arena worthy of his talents. It is just a pity that he compromised his journalistic impartiality by standing for Labour in the Miramar electorate in 1972. Having worn his political heart on his sleeve he may now be relegated to non-political work for ever after. Next week’s “Fair Go” will be the last in the present series. It is a good idea which lias unlimited scope — after all, injustices large and small are endemic in most societies — and deserves a wide and faithful audience. The coming break will provide an opportunity to revamp it a little, perhaps even to the extent of jettisoning the studio audience. It always looks very self-con-scious and plays no other part than that of a clapping machine.