THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1982. Repeating the programmes

Press, 6 February 1982, Page 12

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1982. Repeating the programmes

The? fuss, that has erupted over the principles and practicalities of the right to publish the programme listing of the Broadcasting Corporation is an almost delicious confusion of people crossing the ciistomary boundaries of their views. The argument embraces many real and imagined (or muddled) considerations: freedom of information, the rights to marketable property, supposed monopoly, the interpretation of the Broadcasting Act, the best deal for consumers, the presumed desire of broadcasters (like most other publishers) to promote the widest possible attention to their product to ensure public appeal, and value for advertising revenue. Add to these, irrelevantly, the outdated view that the "Listener” is a subsidised publication — subsidised by other broadcasting revenue — and the irritation of some politicians at some of the contents of the magazine, and the scene is set for a thoroughly messy, if - entertaining, argument.

Like other newspapers, "The Press” is very happy to supply to its readers a daily list of broadcasting programmes. This is done at some cost to the newspaper, of course, but not by way of a fee to the Broadcasting Corporation, which allows newspapers to print programmes a day in advance. People who want to plan days ahead to ensure that their commitments to radio, or television viewing, can be thoroughly arranged, are people who need the “Listener.” Other “Listener” readers will buy the magazine for other reasons. If another publisher obtained rights to print the programmes well in advance, he would have to offer his customers a better deal, than the “Listener” is offering today. Otherwise, where is the advantage for

anyone? The prosperity of the “Listener” grew with television’s extension, and with considerable changes in the other content of the magazine. The chances are that other publications, also offering the programme listing well in advance, but with different supporting material, might not alter support for the “Listener” very much.

The total satisfaction of viewers and radio listeners might be greater. This would hardly upset the Broadcasting Corporation, which is constantly and inevitably beset by consumers who can never be satisfied by the assortment or arrangement of programmes. If a change is to be made in what is the exclusive right of the corporation to command the destiny of its property — the listings it produces — the change should be calculated with first regard to the greatest possible benefit of the consumer. This is one of the advantages that should be guaranteed by State control and ownership of broadcasting services. The worth of the “Listener” in other respects can surely be judged by its readers. They can decide for themselves whether they are getting 50 cents worth — and they probably are coming to this conclusion already. The only change can be, in essence, to enable those who want the programmes, and do not want the rest of the “Listener” package, to get what they want for 50 cents or less. Once the “Listener,” or any other programme listings have been published, the question remains (but for the law as it stands) whether the listings are public information,' free for anyone’s use. The present law says that they are not free information to be circulated at will without the consent of the corporation.