Tele-tales

In fact a gap has opened up between these parties and their THE RECORDS show that in the USA many people are committed to mental hospitals after violently smashing their television sets.

Many more deeply confused, angry and desperate people all over the world believe that the tele is sending out dangerous rays or influences and trying to control their minds.

They are absolutely right, of course, but often end up having electricity pumped through their brains and powerful drugs through their veins to make them forget such crazy notions.

Every night all the year round our masters push their dangerous and depressant concoction. Mostly we sit paralysed or furious; usually we turn the bloody thing off.

But that won't do. Ignoring it won't make it go away; arguing with it or shouting at it (or smashing a boot through it) won't alter it.

Broadcasting is one of the most powerful weapons in the armoury of tue bourgeoisie.

It's used ruthlessly, if occasionally subtly, in the unceasing war between the classes.

The ease with which it became a frank propaganda machine during the Second World War or the facility with which it tactfully omits or half presents the news should leave no illusions.

Equally, however, it shows a contradictory face. The gap between the technological developments and the interests of the class they should serve (but under capitalism can never do) grows wider every week. The occasional programme which gets close to the truth only highlights the bulk which lie.

Just as 'The Times' is one of the best sources for discovering the daily details of the real intentions of the bourgeoisie, so the television, by its editorial line and what it fails to mention, reveals clearly what is going on with the class enemy.

And as Britain has the oldest, most corrupt but skillful bourgeoisie in the world, so our television has rarely been too blatant or obvious in its conduct of affairs.

But that is all ending. The capitalist class may still seem monumental in its power, but all round now is the evidence of its desperation and crackup. Its television is no excepTake this little problem. After weeks of Whitehall scurryings the film made by Tyne Tees Television about some aspects of NATO is not to be shown.

In the Commons (December 15) Mr Healey, Secretary of State for Defence, explained that he had advised the Indesocial bases.

Speaking for the 'Il Manifesto' tendency, Natoli thus pendent Television Authority (ITA) to ban the film because the opinion of the Secretary-General of NATO was that it contained classified informaFrank Allaun, MP, having seen the film, suggested that the real reason for the ban was political in that it 'would scare the pants off many people because of the danger it showed of a high degree of tension between NATO the Warsaw Pact'.

He said that in the film General Walker referred to the danger of war by accident.

A suggestion that the ITA might have ignored Healey's 'advice' and shown the film anyway brought a scandalized response; to suggest that the ITA should be criticised for defending the security of the country and the whole alliance was 'disgraceful'.

'UNDERSTANDING' Healey also denied that his government was in any way responsible for the film, beyond passing on the message to the ITA. He then announced his 'understanding' that the film was to be destroyed within the next 25 hours and another copy was to be placed in the Ministry of Defence Library 'to be available to the public at such time as NATO decides that classified information which is a threat to security is no longer involved'.

But then a new twist; 'The Times' for the next day carried a report by Charles DouglasHome saying that the film was not to be burnt or stored at the Ministry of Defence.

It also pointed out that, in fact, Healey was responsible official Party line.

A much more fundamental critique of the policy of the Italian Communist Party is 'Il Manifesto' group. since 'his department paid for frequent trips to the NATO headquarters in Norway by the television team during the filming and Defence Ministry officials agreed to advise Tyne Tees Television on the editing of the film, which they subsequently cleared'.

The links between this Labour government and NATO, between it and a television company are clear. And TELETALES its true clearer.

So it is precisely as it seems most potent, with colour and three channels, more hours to fill and more news to distort, that the basic weaknesses of the system's broadcasting are being revealed.

Another sign is also to hand.

The report of the Department of Employment and Productivity (DEP) court of inquiry into the BBC dispute (HMSO Cmnd. 4240) was another extremely feeble attempt to patch up a crisis situation.

It uses all the old and tired formulas of accepting parts of the broadcasting workers' complaints while attempting to by-pass others. It tries to confuse by its apparent reasonableness.

It points to what it considers perhaps the most important reason for the walk-outs, strikes and stoppages—a lack of confidence in the way in which the BBC handled the Association of Broadcasting Staff (ABS) claim.

One supposes that if the BBC had itself been more confident (a pre-condition of which is strength) it might have been tougher or at least seen to be in control of the situation or even simply able to buy off trouble.

The report recommends a startling and amazing course leadership has to be built.

A fine comment on the BBC and on the ABS!

It also recommends the Corporation should accelerate the process of job-evaluation and work more closely with the union (familiar?) over its thinking in assessing union claims.

There is also a section urging the creation of a Joint Standing Committee which would have on it senior management and lay members of the unions.

More opportunities here for class compromise-even if the membership is alerted and made conscious of all the implications.

FINAL SOP

Another part of the report recommends that the ABS should 'deal with the problem' of a union rule empowering the National Executive Committee to act 'other than in accordance with arbitration machinery'.

The court correctly points out that it was precisely this rule which prevented an agreement between ABS and the BBC.

Its final sop, however, is that the BBC should not be prevented by financial stringency from 'granting' salaries and conditions commensurate with its declared policies.

Of course it shouldn't, but the crisis consists precisely in the inability of the system to mitigate the effects of its economic crisis on workers everywhere, the BBC included. Not much hope there.

In other words find a nice compromise.

Obviously the BBC workingparty currently looking into conditions will try to produce some slight concessions early in 1970. That way a little peace can perhaps be bought for a little while.

But meanwhile preparations for the next stage of the struggle should be going on in the unions. There are very few signs that it is.

Instead, the leadership is pursuing old ways and worn-out palliatives. It will all erupt again soon and like all crises, postponement only ensures a greater upheaval next time.

The future of broadcasting technologically, is staggering in its possibilities.

Satellites and coaxial cable systems which will allow viewers in England to receive directly the television output of America or Europe or the USSR; cassettes available on purchase, hire or from libraries which will permit an infinite selection of recorded material to be played at home by choice; many more channels of sound and television to meet all national, local, educational and entertainment needs; televised newspapers employing either screen presentation or a print-out.

FEVERISH CUTS

None of these developments await a new technology. All the means exist and working models for each aspect are either in production or ready to go.

But what is the reality?

Capitalism feverishly cutting all trimmings in its ferocious bid to stave off its liquidity crisis; British television and radio in a desperate financial plight and unable to pay its workers or keep up any semblance of a decent output.

Its reformers are floating various ideas; a reduction in the advertising levy for the commercial companies and a pay-as-you-view scheme, like those for telephone service, for the BBC.

But even they have to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation.

An anything but radical member of the BBC's General Advisory Council, who is also editor of the weekly science journal 'Nature', , John Maddox, recently wrote:

'Nothing in what is now planned for the future of the BBC's finances (higher licence fees and hopefully more money for educational broadcasting and local radio plus better returns from the Post Office attempt to collect licence fees) suggests, however, that the Corporation will be able to keep up with the steadily increasing complexity of television production and with the legitimate public interest in diversity' ('The Listener, December 11).