THE PRESS SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1985. High drama, low comedy

Press, 25 May 1985, Page 18

THE PRESS SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1985. High drama, low comedy

The enthusiasm of the Government for televising Parliament presumes that viewers will be interested, even keen, to watch politicians at work. On occasions, when a debate of great public interest is scheduled, this will be so. Not even the most devoted students of politics could afford the time to watch through all the tedium of Parliament’s day, however, waiting for their special points of interest. A great many more people, devotees of neither politics nor politicians, would take it ill if their preferred entertainments were replaced on the screen by the theatre of Parliament. The Broadcasting Corporation is prepared to provide full televised coverage of Parliament in February next year as an experiment. The test might show if a compromise is possible. The proposal is to televise live some of the Parliamentary day — question time and “highlight” debates selected by television news editors. Extracts from the rest of the material could be used on news and current affairs programmes. The result of recording all of the sitting hours of the House would be an “electronic Hansard,” to supply video recordings to those seeking them. An argument frequently advanced in favour of televising Parliament is that it would improve the behaviour of members. The experience in Canada, which began televising Parliamentary proceedings in 1977, is a muchquoted example. Admitting television cameras to the House had assisted the temperate and decorous running of Parliament’s affairs because the Canadian Parliamentarians had spruced up their conduct. As much might be said of the effect of radio broadcasting from Parliament, and to some extent it might be true.

Under the present Government, all of Parliament’s sitting hours are broadcast - although reception is not necessarily good in all parts of the country. Broadcasting hours often used to end before the day’s sitting. It would not have been difficult to show a difference between performances during broadcasting hours and those when listeners could not tune in to debates. The red meat of politics was usually flung into the cage late at night, in wind-up speeches and during long sittings into the small hours of the next day, when members were tired and tempers more easily frayed. That was when the theatre of Parliament most often produced its high drama and its low comedy. Such a distinction is not necessarily conclusive. On many occasions within Parliament’s normal broadcasting hours, the House must seem to be an unruly affair. In fact, the sound is often deceptive. Exchanges that are really quite good-natured can reach the listener as thoroughly hot-tempered and unseemly wrangling. Were all this to be seen as well as heard on television, the public might have a more favourable understanding of

Parliament. The central question is whether television can offer the public an accurate, balanced, and informative insight into Parliament’s business. Short of televising the whole proceedings — a depressing prospect that would entail a third television channel — Parliament would have to be presented to the viewing public in an edited form. It is being reported selectively already by newspapers, radio, and television, subject to the traditional rules of privilege extended to reporting Parliament. The only gap is the absence of cameras in the chamber to record the scene; their arrival seems inevitable. If the rules of fair and accurate reporting are breached, Parliament has the remedy in reserve: it can exclude the press or any representative of it. The television excerpt of a few seconds from Parliament would not be sound coverage of Parliament’s business. This kind of report, even in a programme of headline news, could be distorting unless amply supported by reporting of the background to the event — for television quickly turns words into events. Members of Parliament have distrusted television editing, not because if differs so much from the editing necessary of a radio, tape, but because the medium is so powerful. Fairness and accuracy remain the only standards for the reporting of Parliament, by whatever means. Whether, for instance, televising question time live would give an accurate picture of Parliament at work is doubtful. The occasion is frequently abused even now. Some members ask questions to score political points, not to elicit information; others ask questions with more regard to quantity rather than quality, as if a high tally of questions asked in the House is “proof” of a member’s value. The great advantage to members of televising question time, of course, is that it is the one section of Parliament’s day when everyone can have a chance to perform in a short space of time.

Perhaps the greatest danger is that the dictates of television could come to run Parliament, especially for live telecasts. Sports events are not the only occasions that get tailored to the convenience of television. Conferences of political parties are programmed to fit in with television as a matter of course. If the timetable of Parliament’s debates is to become subject to television’s whim, if the speaking order is to be adjusted to give the best “show,” if, in fact, the spectacle of Parliament is allowed to dominate the purpose, Parliament and democracy will have been diminished. The televising of Parliament can serve a useful purpose, but Parliament is not intended to be an entertainment, even if at times it might seem to resemble one of television’s late night shows.