THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Thesis For The Degree Of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ANTHONY MICHAEL DESTEFANO 1975 [A U ILJLJLMII 1L [L111 .4 “.11 v' w o 9-.-. -.——--._r '5’ 4", " ”5.56 L ""- (5" .4,- r9...- . “- I . ‘ ' - I (a [.,_ ~35 dn=-"'"i" 9“ ml 0 g‘ . I 'fin‘IW-‘F’ME" fiflm-rghmm‘“; . /- AsSTitACT .105 T1115 Ig-JITIAL nausea-mm % . or susslc ACCESS Tsunami! - m we UNIT-w uneven By Anthony Michael DeStefano This dissertation deals with the initial development of public access television by the Eritish Broadcastins Corporation (BBC) in the United Kinsdom during the period from April 1973 to September 197R. This stody makes two primary examinations. The first is an examination of the eocio-politicsl and technical factors atfecting public access television in the United Kingdom. The second, is an examina- tion of the grassroots evaluations of the access eXperience made by the British people who took part in what became known as “open Door,” a series of public access television broad- casts over BBC-2. A preliminarv examination is made of various factors and limitations which are important for an uncerstanding of British broadcasting and the British press. This is done nrirarily to set a political and legal framework to explain later develonsont of public access broadcasting. Discussion has also been develoned concerning the aware- ness of a need for public access in brosdcsstins. This discussion is a distillation of various criticisms of broad- casting and portrays the promise access holds in remedying certain deficiencies. The grassroots evaluations of the British excorience were Anthony Michael DeStefano collected by a series of interviews with British participants in 197“. It is apparent from the responses that the access prosranoina contributed a greater social awareness to the British, one of the avowed pools of the concept originators. The Open Door access prosram series was limited in the area of political programmina. This reflected the role of the sec as an institution of social power - an institution which could not, upon itself, redefine political broadcast balance without redefining the political party balance'in Britain. A more liberal access policy on the part of the Bee appears to have been impermissible from a political standpoint. There is room for expansion of the ranre and frequency of access programs in Britain. A crucial factor would, no matter which technology were employed, require a restructure of the concept of political balance under which British broadcasters labor. The chance of such a restructure. in a society not prone to robust, open and earnest examination of government process by the public and the media is not wrest. a THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM By _ Anthony Michael DeStefeno A.THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University - in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree or HASTEB OP.ABTB Department of Television and Radio _ 1975 Co Eri ht b ' ANT 0 RIC DESTEPANO , 1975 ‘ mm; m mm am (>th of new Cathy. of- W W m 5W, Wm Stall Untimrsdy, 6w WW" WWW af— m reqmnmwsfw m anew DOWDf'IW .LCKNOHLEDGMENTS Appreciation is extended to David Hiy, Hark Rosenbell, Philip Kelley, Chris Bunyan, Martin.81avin and Jenny Fleet in London for both helping the author remain in Britain during 1972-74 and for making the venture worthwhile. ,Helpful assistance and advice was also provided by Jacqueline Dufcur and Francis Berrigan. A.big thanks-is extended to Professor Colby Lewis of the Department of Television and Radio at Michigan State university for his useful and constructive criticisms and his encouragement - all of which helped bring this project to conclusion. :1 TABLE OF CONTENES peso monucnou..........‘..........;. Chapter One: Preliminary Considerations . . . . . . . . British Broadcasting System . . ; . . . . . . . . . . Financial support of British broadcasting . . . ‘. . . British DICE! controls e e e e e e s e s e e e e e s ~o as \n #P {r ta Restraints related to broadcasting . . . . . . . . . Concepts of impartiality and balance in British . . . ‘10 Broadcasting - Chapter Two: Develcpment of An Access Broadcasting . . 1b Concept why Access? . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1b 1. The bias of broadcasters . . . . . . . e . . . 1h 2. Society and the spectacle . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. lack of media feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Case studies of the development of access broadcasting 19 in the United States and the Netherlands . 1. Concept of broadcast access in the United States 19 2. Access programming in the united States . . . 23 3. Access broadcasting in the Netherlands . . . . 25 The initiation.of access broadcasting in Britain. .‘. 26 Chapter Threei BBC Television Access Policy . . . . . . 29 Selection process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Political restraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Operational aspects of Open Door . . . . ThOPub11orespon80 e'eeeeee see Chapter Four :- Conclusions and Appraisals . An assessment of Britishaccess policy . Suggestions for alternative access policy in NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHI APPENDICES Appendix A 8 List of Open Door Programs ”8’ start: Appendix B a Survey Responses of Open Door Participants iv INTRODUCTION ...frcm.time to time we may need to put the media under the microscope, but when we do this we should be careful to maintain the wider perspective. Always we are studying the mass communication.process, the operation of media in society. All aspects of the communication process should be seen in the wider economic, technological, political and social settings. Our present ignorance about the impact of the mass media is partly due to the refusal of researchers to accept this. 1 The inspiration for this dissertation was not the above quoted passage, but rather a front page news article in the Tendon.Times late in 1972 announcing the birth of public access television in the united Kingdom. As originally conceived, this research would have made a detailed consideration of the mechanics of access programming in that country -.a nuts and bolts description of the day-to-day operations. But it became apparent that any examination of public access television could not ignore the larger realities: namely the political, social, technological, and to some extent economic, settings within which British broadcasting operates- snd this is where the above quoted passage becomes relevant. Per it is when the observer is aware of the various settings of British broadcasting that reasons for the subsequent development of public access television become clear. This study's shift in.emphasis from.the mechanical to the 1 2 socio-political also illustrates a change.in.the concerns and orientations of this researcher. Once concerned with being technically.proficient as a media manager, this researcher, through Journalistic experience, became aware of the wider 'media setting. It is in.the commercial realm that news is a commodity, a market item in.a larger spectacle where what is of direct importance and relevance to many individuals and localities is not mentioned because it either is not marketable or else questions basic assumptions of the social spectacle. The promise of access broadcasting is that it can begin to break down the commercial restraints and give people a sense of participation in the media and a potency in dealing with forces which shape their lives. Much of the research on the economic and socio-pclitical context of British broadcasting was done in.Iondon, England, 1 from January 1973 till November 197». Aside from basic research, the author was also involved with several Journal- istic projects which provided insights about not only British broadcasting and the press but British society. Additional material concerning access broadcasting in the United States was researched during the Winter of 197h-75. This dissertation aims to do two things! 1) examine the socio-political and technical factors affecting public access television in Britain, 2) ascertain the grassroots evaluation of the broadcast access experience. To learn such evaluation, a survey was conducted in August - September 197b in the united Kingdom by this researcher of the various participants y 3 in the BBC television access series, “Open Door.‘ not all of the participants responded, but those who did respond have enabled conclusions to be drawn about the viability of public .accsss as a tool with which the British people can increase 1their social awareness and link social groups with shared interests and goals. The examination of the social-economic and technical factors is done to ascertain the intrinsic limitation of access policy in Britain.and to permit suggestions for alternate access policy which can broaden the opportunities for public access. Chapter 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS To understand access broadcasting in Britain, one should have some preliminary acquaintance with 1) the British broad- casting system in general and 2) the political and legal atmosphere within which the British press operates. ~ The British broadcasting system Britain, officially the united Kingdom.of Great Britain and northern Ireland - including Scotland, England, Wales and Ulster, has both state owned and commercial broadcasting as well as cable television systems. The state owned arm is the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, headed by a 12 person Board of Governors 'appointed by the Queen. The Governors work through a permanent staff headed by the Director-General. The BBC runs both a television and radio serv1ce. Commercial television.is run.by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the IBA. Three television channels are available in Britain:- BBC-1, mac-2 and ITV (run by the IBA). About 95 percent of the British population is within reach of those television signals.1 _Some 1,500 cable television systems serve 2 million.homss in Britain. As of Rovember 197b, five of the larger systems had been granted the right to originate programs, which should be differentiated from.access since origination can mean pro- gramming by the cable system owner as opposed to public access. a 5 Cable systems in Bristol and Swindon, had, however, seen interest in the use of video for community access purposes.2 . Broadly speaking, BBC-1 and BBC-2 provide the same kind of television service, the exception being that BBC-2 does more of the home-school and ”Open University” programming. BBC television transmitters occupy numerous locations around the country as do regional broadcast centers. Financial support of British broadcasting In contrast to the BBC, which provides control of its studio and program facilities, the IBA.provides.franchise rights to several programming producers, who are in turn assigned I geographic areas of operation and responsibility. The tele- vision service of any IBA franchise holder is allowed commercial announcements to provide revenue, but program sponsorship is not permitted. Funds for the BBC are raised primarily through a system. of license fees on all television sets in.the country. Close -to 17.2 million television sets were licensed in 1973. ~The license fees are collected by the Minister of Post and Tele- communications_and handed over to the BBC, which then spends the money. In the year ending March 31, 1973, the minister of Post and Telecommunications paid out 125,9h2,000_pounds sterling or about $300 million.3 The one obvious question at this point centers on what control, by virtue of the power of the purse implicit in the BBC financial arrangements, the British Parliament has over BBC programming. It is true that there is no control by Parliament on how the money is spent which would, in practice, as happens in Canada, for instance,.mean direct Parliamentary control of programme content: but the money voted by Parliament in the annual broadcasting vote. It is absurd to suppose, as the BBC officials ' sometimes suggest, that the money flows directly and,. as it were, uncontaminated by the government, from. the viewer to the BBC. Moreover, the size of the license fee given by Parliament is decided by the government from time to time. It is when the BBC asks for the license fee to be increased or is in a deficit situation that the Corporation (BBC) becomes vulnerable financially and politically. This government power over the BBC purse strings may very well be a factor in the minds of BBC executives and producers when.they plan programs or make editorial decisions. There has been, however, only one incident of attempted monetary intimidation of the BBC. This occured during the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Prime Minister Anthony Eden, perceiving bias in BBC reports of the crisis, threatened to out the funding of: BBC radio overseas service. The money was not cut and a 'review'by'a Parliamentary commission found the bias charge to be groundless. With the TBA, the economic restaint that exists with the government is an advertising revenue levy. This levy can siphon off profits and theoretically restrain.programming ventures if the producers decide to economize to maintain - 6 profit levels through restraint in.programming expense. British press controls Beyond the power of the purse, there are more direct legal and political controls on British broadcasting. As much as the British broadcasting services perform a function similar to the newspaper and magazine press in news and public affairs programming, the controls applicable to the British press are also relevant. The press in Britain is circumscribed by laws of . defamation, libel, property and race relations. Journalists can be, and have been, prosecuted for dishonestly handling stolen.documents (i.e., newsworthy documents, memoirs). Inciting racial prejudice and racially prejudicial remarks are also illegal in the press. 1 American Journalists, while vulnerable as well to libel, defamation and property prosecutions, have continually been able to rely upon American court inclinations to broadly I .respect and favorably interpret the First Amendment to the united States Constitution. This has generally meant the American press controls its own content. The British press, however, has no similar constitutional guarantee, particularly in the area of government and politics. Instead, tradition and constitutional arrangements, as well as law, have worked together to keep the press from revealing much about govern» ment. ' . A “Most British journalists, I think,‘would agree that our newspapers are too reluctant either to uncover or to reveal secrets,“ British journalist Anthony58ampson remarked. '8 “There has been.a saying that if the readers knew how much of their subscription went to keeping information from them they would demand their money back.“ what, specifically, mitigates press access to government news and secrets in Britain? Access to the government news sources is limited. There is no system of congressional committees as in the United States with separate and multiple news sources. The only journalists with access to British government committees and ministers on a daily basis are the lobby correspondents who are briefed and given government position on issues-and legislation.8 A The structure of the British government is devised, it seems, to protect the policy making function of the government from.public scrutiny. Also affected are the policies and processes of past governments since it is embedded within British constitutional theory that civil servants must guard the secrecy of past government deliberations? Enforcing this discretion and information restraint is more than traditional practice. The Official Secrets Act prescribes punishment for the disclosure of material related to national security. This act applies to everyone in Britain and also relates to any official information regardless of any security classification. Although rarely applied with prosecutions, it is sufficiently vague and threatening to inhibit editors and government officials alike in their handling of official information:0 In a more specific context, the British government engages 9 in the practice of issuing restraining notices, 'D-Notices,' to the press. These notices request that certain information not be reported. A special Defense, Press and Broadcasting Committee issues these notices, most of which deal with defense matters. This committee is-a mix of hdnistry of Defense officials and journalists}1 However, ignoring such a directive does not constitute, necessarily, a violation of law. Restraints related to broadcasting So far as broadcasting serves a press function in Britain, broadcasters are liable to the restraints and news management techniques of the government and the laws. Many of the practices are decades old and illustrate an attitude of deference to authority which is generally exhibited by the British press. '1'i. I There are however, specific regulations which pertain to broadcasters. There are also specific practices and policies which apply to political balance and impartiality in broad- . casting. . Any minister of the British Crown, for instance, can request the BBC or the IRA to broadcast an announcement which appears in that minister's judgment to be necessary. According _to British media historian, Stuart Hood, this power was used during world war II-for official announcements on such matters as rationing changes.12 Another statute, clause 13(h) of the BBC license, 10 specifies that Britain's Minister for Post and Telecoms. munications may: ' .from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from sending any matter or matters of any class specified in such notice. As the BBC puts it, this enables the "government or Parliament to have the last words on issues in.which their”, 1 views and those of the Corporation might be in conflict.“ The BBC is also prohibited from editorializing. This restriction comes in the form of a Prescribed memorandum, an unpublished appendix to the BBC Charter and License, and is 1 rooted in clause 13(b) just cited. The concepts of impertialitz and balance in British broadcastipg One policy of the BBC important for the purposes of this discussion, is in the area of impartiality. There is no British law’which demands either impartiality or balance in BBC broadcasts, as is the case with American broadcasting law. There are, however, several policy documents, the latest. being a statement by Director-General Sir Hugh Greene: 'we have to balance different points of view in our programmes but not necessarily within each individual programme. nothing is more stultifying than the current affairs programme in which all the opposing opinions cancel each other out. Sometimes one has to use that method but in general it makes for greater liveliness and impact if the balance can.be. ‘ 16' achieved over a period, perhaps within a series of programmes.f 11 This is the BBC policy on balance today. But the statement about BBC's impartiality needs one footnote: impartiality does not imply an Olympian neutrality or detachment from those basic moral and constitutional beliefs on which the nation's life is founded. The BBC does not feel obliged for example to appear neutral as between truth and untruth, justice and injustice, freedom and slavery, compassiorhand cruelty, tolerance and intolerance.... For example, the BBC made an editorial decision that British Fascism should not be provided with a platform, nor should the proponents of racial discrimination; at the same time it was held that, at the other end of the spectrum, 18 communists were outside the accepted political consensus.» In the terms of party politics, impartiality is main- tained by balanced appearance of the major political party spokesman over the years and through the election campaigns. This, again, is not statuatory as is the case with Federal. Communication Commission regulations in the United States. Instead, in 19b7, an agreement was reached between the Government and the Opposition and recorded in an Aide Memoirs which has been revised several times since. This document, the Aide Memoirs, left the BBC free to broadcast talks or discussions of political topics and each year a certain number_ of broadcast periods are set aside for discussions by-the . 19 spokesmen of the major political parties in Britain. Arrangements are also made between.the BBC and the political parties for broadcasts during a General Election- campaign. Hhen.a General Eleotion.is announced, a certain number of time slots are made available to the main political' 12 parties and the Scottish and welsh national parties. ”Impartiality is impartiality within bounds and is applied to those parties and organizations which occupy the middle ground of politics)" writes Stuart Rood, in.a discus- sion of the Bee and politics. ”In practice it (impartiality) is the expression of a middle-class consensus politics, which continues that tradition of impartiality on the side of the establishment.... where impartiality breaks down is when the news deals with political activities or industrial action which ”BBC is independent and its independence is vital to its credibility. But it is also a corporate citizen. It is not above or outside the nation, but a part of it,” probably best sums up the BBC's own view of its role in British society? Impartiality and balance in British broadcasting, then," are arrangements worked out in de facto format. There is no statute providing access to the media nor is there a constitup tional doctrine such as press freedom which can be used to argue for access. Both the Government and British broad- casting work in accomcdation. Evidence of this accomcdation is brought strikinglyi. forward by'a memo, an electronic memo, which has come to the attention .or the British press. ' The message was sent from Richard Francis, the Chief BBC Controller for northern Ireland to Phillip Daly, the chief of Science Features for BBC Televisidn. Mr Francis asked, in the Summer of 197b, that certain programming about Northern 20 are seen as being a breach of the conventions of the consensus.‘ 13 22 Ireland be made politically acceptable. 'This memorandum contained a reference to a film, "Children.in crossfire," about the psychological effects of combat on children caught in sectarian.violence in Ulster. ”Given the concern about this film expressed to me at the highest political level,“ hr Francis said in the memo, 'I need to be satisfied that the final version can be made acceptable.'p The memo went on to say,'As it stands, the film makes no reference to the progress and implies nothing is being done about the problem.“ This refers to political developments in Ulster during 197“ to increase the Catholic communities share of political power. “It contains not a single reference to the new executive and the remarkable effects of having Catholics ministers of housing, community relations, etc.“ The program was not reedited but broadcast instead with a disclaimer mentioning some of the points brought up in the .Prancis memo. Prom.what camrinfered from the phrase “highest political level,“ the British government had reservations about the film and wanted editorial changes. In one sense the govern! ment got the changes and the concept of balance seemed to be motivated in this case by the need to make the film acceptable to the government. Chapter Two DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACCESS BROADCASTING CONCEPT Egz_4ccess1 To understand the push for access in broadcasting, there should be some understanding of the criticism levied against broadcasters and broadcasting. What follows does not purport . to be an all-inclusive list of the ills of broadcasting but instead a distillation of criticisms which are particularly relevant to a discussion of access broadcasting. Following the general discussion will be portrayals of the development of access broadcasting in three countries: the united States, the Netherlands and the united Kingdom. l. The bias of broadcaster: when dealing with bias in this context, the discussion is not centered around the issue or political bias of a particular broadcaster or Journalist. flhat is meant is this inpbred bias of broadcasters, who, because of their background, their position in many societies as a middle class consensus element, fail to represent a complete cross section of society. To put it another way, as a recent Labour Party statement on the press in Britain said, IMany Journalists on national newspapers, whatever their backgrounds, tend to live in.a very ' different social environment from that of their readers, and the majority of them consistently overestimate the middle class composition of their readers."1 This can readily be applied to broadcast Journalists as well. The result can be, as another writer said, 'if the lb 15 professionals alone continue to determine how society will be reported and reflected, they may go excluding, quite unconsciously, the many of the views, life-styles and community backgrounds different from their own.’ As an illustration of all this in the British context, this bias of lifestyle is what several prominent black artists and musicians in Britain claim.has led to much unawareness and exposure in that country of the discrimination suffered by West Indian immigrants to the United Kingdom.3. But the explanation for the bias of broadcasters and other media specialists has gone further than the social- background factors. 2. Society and the spectacle Critics and commentators on the left of the political spectrum say broadcasting in a capitalist economy is part of what is collectively known as "the spectacle.“ It is the spectacle which is designed to mesmerize the people, who then live surrogate lives through the media. The media becomes the substitute for the lives people cannot live. As part of the spectacle, the broadcast media provide the combination of bread and circuses to retain the support of the populationes It would then seem that the existing power atruoture could not afford to emancipate the media, to provide . access, to permit discussion about what is real. But French philosopher Herbert Marcuse feels that media access can be allowed even in a ”repressive' capitalist society because it . gives the people a sense of potency while the ruling oligarchy 16 gets on with business as usual. Existing institutions, feels Marcuse, are incapable of change which is desireable. There- fore, no matter how great the access to the media, there can be no change. The media, says narcuse, are themselves the mere instrument of economic and political power. Marcuse wants to replace the current managers of the media and of society, with those of leftist philosophy. It would be the dictatorship of leftists, which according to Marcuse, would be the best for society.6 But even such a leftist oligarchy, in the minds of other socialist philosophers, would be dangerous and repressive. Writing in the New Left Review, Hans Magnus Enzenberger warns: ";;I All technical manipulations are potentially dangerous; the manipulation of the media cannot be countered, however, by old or new forms of censorship, but only by direct social control, that is to say, by the mass of the people. The communists' fear of releasing this potential, of the mobilizing capabilities of the media ... is one reason why even.in the socialist countries, the old bourgeois culture, greatly disguised and distorted but structurally intact, continues to hold my. 7 ' 'Enzenberger would make everyone a manipulator, or allow that potential to openly exist, in other words provide modes] of media access. It might be useful at this stage to try and illustrate the concept of the spectacle by taking illustrations from life in America. A researcher who has done __ this with the magazine and book fields is Lawrence Chenoweth. hr. Chenoweth has studies the content of American magazine and books published between 1917 and 1969. In his book, The American Dream of success, he notes that the American success ethic and 1? its attendant, and often contradictory, goals of economic achievement, material consumption, friendship, moral and humanistic living, have been a staple part of popular American literature. These broad goals are part of a spectacle which directs the human attention and energy of people in the United States? Chenoweth maintains that the popular American press, along with parents and teachers, transmit the basic American ideology-of achievement and success? By simply stretching the transmitter of such culture to include the broadcast media, it is easier to understand the pervasive power of the media and how, in the minds of leftists, it has become guilty of imprisoning people with the achievement ethic and the other attendant social relations of a capitalist economy. But the media's power lies not exclusively with their ability to influence behavior but rather in their expression of already dominant values and ideology. This state is stressed by Richard N. Goodwin, a former assistant to President Jenn.P. Kennedy, when he writes that: The mass media are themselves; that is, they necessarily reflect the basic arrangement of private interests and powers in America. The major.institutions of communication, including the most powerful newspapers, are also large and complicated bureaucracies. Like all bureaucracies they are guided, not by individuals but by’a set of stable assumptions, and ideolgy which no editor or publisher has the power to, change- 10 _The American media are then part of the larger spectacle and are themselves a spectacle. 18 2:_Lack of media feedback Other proponents of public access in‘the broadcast media, while not taking as political a view of the media spectacle, feel the media are deficient because they lack a structure which permits the public to challenge both media viewpoints and programming. No one in the United States, for instance, is likely to challenge bias, errors, or interpretation of the broad- cast media unless prepared to risk litigation - the exception being in the areas of broadcast editorials, election campaigns, and personal attacks. Even talk programs and telephone shows, a popular form of limited access, are very often in formats presribed and controlled by the broadcasters. This is not to mean that the media do not make an effort at “fairness,” the media do make an effort to seek out competing viewpoints in controversy. Controversial groups are readily available to provide the media with reaction. But feedback and access on the part of non-controversial, nonpdeviant, none elite members of society is not given automatic media attention.11 Such bias loses a display of much subtlety and shades of opinion from life styles of the "everyday“ people. People are becoming more impatient with such restrictive and limiting institutions as broadcast media, particularly when.they'act as an unchallenged one-way flow of content. People at the grassroots of society are aware, committed, potent, not necessarily socialist - but for them the development of a participatory society depends on the range 19 A ‘ . 12 openness and variety of its communication procedures. It is towards this end that access broadcasting is seen to have the most promise. As Labour Government Minister Anthony Wedgewood Benn has told Britain: 'The real question is not whether the programmes are good, or serious, or balanced and truthful. It is whether or not they allow the people themselves to reflect, to each other, the diversity of interests, opinions, grievances, hopes and attitudes to their fellow citizens and talk out their differences at sufficient length.... the people for their part have the right to demand a greater access to the community through the mass media. 13 Case studies of the development of access broadcasting in the United States and the Netherlands . Discussion so far has been in general terms about the criticism of broadcasting and how such criticism supports the concept of public access to the broadcast media. What will now follow is a discussion of two particular case studies of the development of public access broadcasting in the United States and the Netherlands. Institutional and constitutional changes will be examined. Such discussions are relevant to this dissertation because they will help provide a frame of reference with which to compare the British public access experience. I 1. concept of broadcast access in the United States In theory, Just about anyone can apply for a broadcast license in the United States, but the capital investment needed to initiate and then sustain a broadcast facility is 20 enormous and beyond the range of many people and organizations. The media airways, then, are actually fiefdoms with the license - more often than not granted for what seems to be perpetuity. How can anyone then gain access to the broadcast system.once denied a license? . There has developed in the United States a body of law which‘grants the right of broadcast access in certain circumstances. The legal obligations in the United States requiring broadcasters to provide members of the public with diversity of viewpoints and fairness are: the Fairness Doctrine, the Equal.Time Rule and the Personal Attack Rule. Both the Equal Time Rule and the Personal Attack Rule apply to fairly . specific instances; paid political announcements at election time and replies to personal attacks. The Fairness Doctrine is actually an amendment to Section.315 of the Federal Communication Commission rules and has also been used to gain access to the broadcast media but in less specific circump stances than the Equal Times Rule of the Personal ittack Rule. The Fairness Doctrine does not give any group or individual the right to broadcast, but instead requires that broadcasters provide reasonable opportunity for the presenta- tion of conflicting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. . The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, long contested over the years, was last upheld by a 1969 Supreme Court Decision. The Court used three arguments to support 21 the constitutionality: scarcity of available frequencies, defacto public ownership of broadcast frequencies and the legitimate claims of those unable to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views. This decision, the famous Red Lion case, supported the existence in American broadcast law of a right to reply to a controversial statement. But there is no guarantee any specific issue will be discussed in such fashion - that is with a right of reply extended to the conflicting views.” In 1970 a more intense campaign evolved in the United States for access to the broadcast media on specific issues. In the Summer of that year, in United States Senators requested access to the national television networks to broad- cast a rebuttal to President Richard Nixonds views on the ‘Vietnam.war. The Senators actually requested the networks to sell them airtime. The National Broadcasting Company (was) did sell a half-hour segment on television but refused to sell additional time, as did the other two television.networks, saying the Fairness aspects had been covered by previous broadcasts during the war. The Federal Communication Commissidn later ordered a specific right of reply to the Vietnam.war stand of the President. The FCC Justified the access as being unique in this case- five Presidential broadcasts in two months - and ‘ emphasized that broadcasters had no obligation to sell time to anyone. 16 . ’ This reluctance to create access or a right of rebuttal A 22 to a Presidential position was challenged by Senator William Fulbright in August of 1970. The Senator perceived a media imbalance favoring the President, who could command national television coverage for any speech. To counter this imbalance, Senator Fulbright introduced a proposal in Congress to provide specific access to “authorized” House of 'Representative or Senate spokesman to present the views of 1? those legislative bodies. The Fulbright proposal did not pass. The Democratic Senators, in the meantime, had appealed the Federal Communications Commission ruling to the courts and attempted to seek a “limited right of access for radio and television for any kind of paid public issue announcements.‘ The Federal Appeals Court agreed with the Senators and in the ruling, Judge Skelly Wright reasoned that a split in broadcast time existed - an open section and a broadcast controlled .section. 'The open section, the commercial section, was at issue and Judge Wright felt that limiting broadcaster discretion over advertising time (i.e. the decision to accept or reJect advertising) would not be infringing on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters in the broadcaster controlled programp ming sector.18 | The decisiOn appeared to access advocates as one in.which a modified right to access was established for purchased time. I'The burden is now placed on the broadcaster,“ wrote Professor Jerome Barron, an advocate of a legal right to access. “He must now show that very substantial harm would flow from the actual acceptance of specific editorial advertising in order 23 to Justify reJection.!19 'The final word in the case of the Democratic Senators against the FCC was not hear, however, until may 1973. The United States Supreme Court overturned the Appeals Court and maintained the broadcaster must be given discretion to determine what he will broadcast or not broadcast.20At this writing, such is the position of government sponsored standards of public access to the broadcast media. It would be unconstitutional and an infringement upon broadcasters' rights to free speech to provide access standards. 2. Access programminggin the United States The refusal of the Supreme Court to uphold any govern- ment imposed standards of access has not meant that public access has been stifled in the United States. Several broadcast experiences with public access evolved during the early 1970's and in fact served as the germinal seed from 'which the BBC program concept arose. In San Francisco, California, a group called the Committee for Open Media.prepared a challenge to the license renewals of local television stations unless access was granted to groups not normally on the air. Bearing in mind the preceding legal discussion of broadcast access in the United States, such a grassroots legal challenge might have been metiwith considerable resistance. Three of five San Francisco stations, however, did allow airtime to be used by previously unheard groups and ideas. The selection process was done by the station management who allowed access 2h 21 if a message was deemed ”substantial.” In Boston, massachussettes, a public broadcasting station permitted groups and individuals to use station facilities and airtime in a series called “Catch-#b,' a program concept which had influence on the founders of the later British programming. Two technological developments, cable television and portable video equipment, have provided additional potential and experience in the united States with public access broadcasting. . ' Cable television is capable of providing a multitude of channels for television reception. With such an abundance of channels, it is no suprise that CATV's potential for access has been exploited. The Federal Communications Commission in 1972 gave . notice that cable systems in major television market areas of _the united States would be required by mid- 1977 to have channels and equipment necessary for public access programming. This would have mandated access on cable in America but the economic situation in America has led to something of a reversal of that policy. Inflation, recession and tighter capital requirements in America during 197h-75 prompted the Federal Communications Commission to ease its time limits on conversion to access capability on cable television. The agency, however, is still committed to public access on cable televisionfz' One of the more widely publicized efforts at public 25 V access on cable television began in newrork City during 1971. It was then that two cable companies were required by the New York City government to provide two public access channels. One channel was reserved for last minute or one- time announcements. The second channel provided the -opportunity for the public to reserve the same time period each week or several times a week. To avoid monopolization of the reserved time by any or a few groups, the New York City regulations limited the amount of hours which any group or individual could reserve.23 According to the Report of The Sloan Commission on cable, 'On The Cable: The Television of Abundance," what also worked to expand the scope of CATV public access in New York City were the efforts of private groups such as the Alternate media Center at New Iork University and Open Channel, a community organization which became involved with testing ways public :access could best be developed. The new York University group developed concepts and techniques in the use of inexpensive portable video recording devices for incorpora- tion into cable television programming. Such inexpensive technology, and the existence of groups willing to expand expertise in.using the technology, have been critical in shaping the early use of New Ibrk cable television access channels?“ }. Access broadcasting in the Netherlands So far in the united States, access has been provided by arrangements between broadcasters and local groups and 26 individuals. The broadcaster in these instances is in the position of trustee, with the power to consent or withold a broadcast. But in the Netherlands, public access has developed into an institution for any group which can claim 15,000 members or supporters and continues to grow in member- ship to 100,000 after two years of exposure on the country's three radio and two television.networks. Failure to reach the 100,000 members would lose the broadcast time as far as the group was concerned.25 This Netherlands system is actually a modified right to access. The access is not available to small minorities or individuals. Rather, the system is organized to allow the program time to be used as seen fit by the organizations. This can, however, permit fringe minorities (without a 15,000 membership) and splinter groups to receive a portion of the broadcast time. Any of the access time can be used as the 2 .programming group's discretion dictates. The initiation of access broadcasting in Britain “Broadcasting is too important to be left to the broadcasters,” declared Anthony Wedgewood Benn in 1968 as he spoke of the frustration and exclusion felt by many individuals in relation to television and radio.” This was the opening public statement of Ir. Bennie on the subject of broadcast access. ’ Later, in may 1971, Mr. Benn asked that the British trade unions be given broadcast time for their own programming, 27 'say a quarter hour out of the 200 hours of BBC output.“ 28 Whether such a quota of time would be sufficient to raise anyone's consciousness of the trade union movement is questionable but this proposal had firmly raised the access issue in Britain. One BBC producer who did attempt to operate in the spirit of access, long before the concept became a regular practice was John King. hr. King literally invited people off the street and into the sec Bristol TV studio to talk about theirzginterests, opinions, grievances, hopes, and attitudes.“ While hr. Benn's access stance received press attention, the major push for access television eventually came from Rowan Ayers, a BBC television producer. hr. Ayersi interest was kindled by access programming in the United States when he visited the country in 1972 .and took the opportunity to see “Catch-Eh“ in Boston.and the cable television production unit in New Ibrk City called Open Channel.30 Impressed by the concept of public access and the specific programming he witnessed in the United States, Mr. Ayers returned to Britain with the idea of trying to incorporate the concept into British broadcasting. His first opportunity came in August 1972 when.the regularly scheduled production of "late Night lineup“ would be concluding its season. with one programming slot remaining, hr. Ayers production teat-.'fi aside the time for a Stuth London 27 'say a quarter hour out of the 200 hours of BBC output.“ 28 Whether such a quota of time would be sufficient to raise anyone's consciousness of the trade union movement is questionable but this proposal had firmly raised the access issue in Britain. One BBC producer who did attempt to operate in the spirit of access, long before the concept became a regular practice was John King. hr. King literally invited people off the street and into the sec Bristol TV studio to talk about theirzginterests, opinions, grievances, hopes, and attitudes.“ While Mr. Benn's access stance received press attention, the major push for access television eventually came from Rowan Ayers, a BBC television producer. hr. Ayersi interest was kindled by access programming in the united States when he visited the country in 1972 .and took the opportunity to see “Catch-uh“ in Boston and the cable television production unit in New York City called Open Channel.30 Impressed by the concept of public access and the specific programming he witnessed in the United States, Mr. Ayers returned to Britain with the idea of trying to incorporate the concept into British broadcasting. His first opportunity came in August 1972 when the regularly scheduled production of "late Night Idneup' would be concluding its season. with one programming slot remaining, Hr. Ayers production teat-->fi aside the time for a Stuth London 1 28 community group to do their own program. Despite some misgivings within the BBC about the program, the production was broadcast. Mr. Ayers then made a strong request, following the favorable response to the solo program, to BBC Program Director David Attenborough for money to sustain a series of access programs. Hr. Attenborough left the BBC 'without taking a decision but the new program director consented to the access concept and the ”Open Door“ series was initiated.31 At this point some media observers in Britain like to note some interesting parallel developments. 1973 was to be the BBC's Piftieth Anniversary. It was also a year when a commission might be assigned to examine the BBC for an up- coming license and charter renewal. Has the approval of access a concession to the demands for more participation in broadcasting and was it timed to appear as public relations 1 gesture to coincide with the Fiftieth Anniversary? Answers to such questions would have to wait for detailed interviews ? by other researchers of the motives of BBC managers but the questions might even be moot now that access television in Britain, at this writing, has been sustained for over three yc‘r' e _ Chapter Three BBC TELEVISION ACCESS POLICY Selection process The Open Door television series, when originated in January 1973, invited anyone in Britain to make a television program for broadcast over BBC-2. The caveats were: no obscenity, incitement to riot, libel or racial slurs. Neither could the program makers directly solicit the audience for funds.1 In 1973, program requests came from 300 groups and individuals? flew were the programs selected? The selection process was initially handled by Rowan Ayers, the program concept originator, who had been granted one hS-SO minute slot of programming time weekly on BBC92. After Mr. Ayers left the sec in the Fall of 1973. the selection process was handled in.two stages. First, the nine production assistants and coordinators at the Open Door office in Hammersmith, area area of west Tendon, would meet and pick the best selection from nine-alternate possibilities representing the favorite of each individual. The final choice of the group was then sent to a committee of BBC executives composed of the BBC Television Director of Programs and the Director of Television News and Current Affairs. This two-man committee would review the initial selection and never, at this writing, refused the program selection made by the Open Door staff. But at least two programs were post- poned because it was feared the selected group_wou1d upset . 29 . . 30 the balance of political broadcasts in the General Election campaign broadcast schedule.3 Political restraints Why the two-man screening committee? Prom.what can be gleaned from staff interviews with BBC personnel, the team of executives served to assure that the political accomcdation between the BBC and the Government concerning electoral balance was kept. Mr. Ayers admitted as much when in 1973 he said, “there are constitutional strictures in the area of party broadcasts, you know, which frankly we cannot make inroads upon with Open Door.‘ The constitutional strictures are actually the Aide Memoire agreements made concerning electoral broadcasts. Beyond.the party broadcasts, Hr. Ayers, talking from his experience as a BBC current affairs producer, felt that “I'm sure somewhere in the whole process someone keeps a tally as to how many members of Parliament from different parties the BBC puts on the air.“ 5 This tally'keeping, if it does take place as hr. Ayers suggests, would be the organization's (BBC) and the politicians' way of assessing the “balance“ and impartiality of the BBC. The election issue balance, according to Mr. Ayers, could not be tampered with by Open Door program participants. Hr. Ayers used the illustration that if the Communist Party of Britain had an Open Door program and used ' it to start talking about the housing problem in Britain, that llllillll'llll ‘. 31 might be construed to have touched an election issue and then would have beseiged the BBC for reply time. Rather than scuttle the concept when faced with such political restraints, Mr. Ayers felt he would continue with Open Door, having underb stood that the political balance in programming would not be upset by the new programming entry of access. This required a steering away of Open Door from organized political groups, particularly organized parties, and those dealing with national issues that may have had an election link. So, Mr. Ayers said, rather than take political groups for programs, the BBC prefered suggestions from “111 formed groups with. 111 formed ideas.“ This preference, which sounds like a rationalization to make the best of the political restrice tions, actually brings up an interesting distinction between British access and what is practiced in the Netherlands. The British preference is a swing to the underrepresented in media ‘ who cannot mass the public support or the news attention of television to gain airtime. Such groups in the Netherlands would have to convince the larger organizations who have a quota of airtime to share the allotment. This British bias‘ towards the “111 formed groups“ avoids one criticism of access broadcasting, that such programming might become monopolized by the more aggressive public relations agents of the larger political and economic interestsf The BBC staff, when faced with the political restrictions against which they could make no inroads, spread the opportuh- nity of public access to the underrepresented, in terms of 32 media coverage. Access by organized political groups was kept to a minimum. But this need not entirely be frowned upon. _For such practice served to illustrate a dimension of access beyond the broadcast of grievance and issue to the expression of diversity of lifestyles and interests. Operational aspects of Open Door As mentioned earlier, Open Door started broadcasting programs in April 1973. As of this writing, the series was continuing and by January 1975 had broadcast a total of 115 programs. This study, however, is concerned primarily with -programs broadcast till September 197E. hr. Ayers kept a close watch on the early programs, making the selections, because both he and the concept of public access were “in the state of walking gingerly onto the lakes.“ Budgets were not lavish by BBC standards, limited to 500 pounds sterling or around $1,200 per program. Film, processing, 8 travel expenses, all were paid out of this per program budget. The BBC attached a professional advisor to each group making a program. These advisers assisted the groups on various technical matters and ran errands. ' “we have no editorial control,“ one BBC staff member said about the Open Door advisers. “We advise but have no say in the editorial matter of the programs. We feel, however, that when a group is opening itself for libel, we try to point that fact out and convince them not to blow this opportunity.“ The staff member, with the term “blow“ was talking about the 33 possibility of embroiling the BBC in~a libel suit and jeopardizing the access series.9 The initial popular British press concern centered on “access working,“ in other words whether “amateurs“ could produce other than “boring“ television. This concern was dispelled by the first series of 13 Open Door programs. A reading and sampling of the comments of the newspaper critics and reviewers will attest to this early success. Commenting on the first program by the Saint Mungo Community Trust, a charity for homeless people, Chris Dunkley wrote in the Financial Times, “... the program proved three valuable things: that access can work: that amateurs do not produce boring television: and that the lack of professional gloss can lend a positive charm."1° Philip Purser in the Sunday Telegraph wrote, “the black teachers in the third Open Door program showed the inevita- bility, in a world starved of black heroes, black teachers and black administrators, of the 'think white' reaction of the black schoolchildren.... This was the best Open Door so far, and I hope it made many white teachers of all age-groups take a fresh look at both their textbooks and their attitudes.“11 Commenting on the Basement Project Film Group, Clive James of the Observer wrote, “A very important show, and probably a turning point for Rowan Ayers, who has masterminded access telly from the start and must have been waiting I anxiously for the show that would seize its moments. 'East End Channel One' was the clincher: anyone who tries to close 34 12 the Open Door now can be opposed from a strong position.“ There was also criticism of the access concept. Peter Lennon of the Sunday Times quickly spotted a major limitation in the Open Door format when he wrote that “since the visitors (i.e. programmers) are only allowed a brief turn and then have to wait at least another couple of years, we can legitimately wonder how wide open the door really is.“ (A crucial point is raised by such a condition. For does not this long waiting list for access effectively create a “ghetto“ of underrrepresented segments of the community who must vie for a limited number of broadcast periods? ' FUrther fueling the criticism.was the late night broadcast time, initially 11:20pm on anday evenings, a time, as one critic said, “when the erltural minority must be thinking about going to bed.“1 Does this not further tend to make access participants work in a “ghetto“ situation? Still, said Mr. Ayers, an audience of between 200,000 to 500,000 might be expected nationwide at that time, far more than many of thelsgroups might have ever hoped for had they not broadcast. The public response What was the public response in Britain to the Open Door series? What feedback reached the participants? Attempts were made by this researcher to poll the Open Door participants by telephone interviews in order to record .the evidence about viewer feedback. The Open Door policy at 35 the end of each broadcast was to transmit a brief message giving an address or telephone number at which the group might be reached; thus an opportunity to provide feedback was presented. In the period covered by this study, some 37 programs ‘were broadcast on OpenIDoor with #1 different groups or individuals allotted time, this allowed for multiple presentations on one show. Eight program types can be discerned from the lists: business lobbies, health groups, social activists and pressure groups, social service organizations, education groups, philosophical groups and artists (i.e. poets, actors, musicians) in their capacity as artists. The largest group of program allocations was taken up by the social activists and pressure groups, which accounted for a total of 19 programs. Social service organizations such as adoption agencies and parent organizations for those with handicapped children accounted seven programs. The artists had six programs. The remaining groupings accounted for two or three program allocations. . Of the groups which broadcast, 31 left addresses and, or, phone numbers for contact. This researcher made over- tures to all 31 groups and 17 responded. Some of the groups, particularly one which combined a poet and a gypsy organization had come together only for the purpose of doing a program.and then dissolved. Some groups did not respond to requests for interviews or failed to return telephone calls. , 36 From the responses received, it is apparent that health oriented groups received the most feedback from the British audience. The “Teachers in Dentistry,“ pushing for greater emphasis on preventive dentistry techniques in the National Health Service, claim that public reaction was very favorable and several members of the House of Commons asked for a private screening of the videotape. Britain's Chief Dental Officer then asked to see the program and attempted, by letter to the Parliament, to rebut the charges made about his office and the National Health Service.16What impressed one critic, Philip Purser of the Sunday Telegraph, about the dentistry program was, not the audience response, but the demonstration that “the professional naggers and nigglers who it was understandably feared would monopolize the facility simply can't compare with quiet citizens, like those dentists, who .have something of proven importance to advocate.“ Another health organization called the “U and I Club“ applied for access time and produced a program that prompted 12,000 letters from the public, government and the press. This program dealt with cystitis, a urinary infection, and public interest increased. 18 “We went on the air to put the case of the thousands of cystitis sufferers accross in an unbiased way. Television had never covered the subject-and many people appeared unknowledgeable on the extent and cause of this affliction,“ said Angela Kilmartin, one of the_program participants. 37 A lobby for homeopathic medicine took an Open Door program slot. The group advocated the uses of natural medicinal material and its availability on the National Health Service. They received 10,000 letters and queries for information from the British public.20 From this small sample of Open Door participants, it should be apparent that the programs contributed to some greater social awareness for the British public. Such was the avowed goal of Rowan Ayers in promoting the access concept. For those who like to quantify program results, the several thousand letters and membership queries for the health groups is solid evidence. Chapter Four CONCLUSIONS AND APPRAISALS Open Door access television in the United Kingdom.was a breakthrough for British broadcasting. Never before had the broadcast facilities in that country been open to the public with such little restraint from the managers of the electronic media. _ By the end of 197E, Open Door was an ongoing project, at a time when the BBC was announcing programming cute. ' Open Door was starting a sixth series in 1975 and by June 1975 was to be continued for another full year of broadcasting} Since the concept started in April 1973, numerous foreign broadcast organizations became interested in the idea. The BBC experience managed to seep out among the regional ‘ television outlets in Britain. London.Weekend Television initiated its own access program in the Spring of 197“ but 'discontinued the series after several weeks, allegedly because of lack of funding. Bristol's Earlech Television began its series in the Fall of 197“. An assessment of British Access pglioz Broadcast access has developed in Britain as it had developed in American experiments - with the broadcasters acting as trustees and apportiOning the allotments of air time. ' The British experience also had limitations which kept political programming out or the project. This is basically ‘ 38 39 a reflection of the BBC as an institution of social power. The political balance concept of British broadcasting is actually a distribution of political power.. Any redistribution of this power would mean a redefinition of political balance and a ~reshuffle~of the concept of the political consensus. A.more liberal access policy on the part of the BBC would, it then appears, not have been permitted from a political standpoint. This brings the discussion back to the remarks of Herbert Marcuse. Does not this British access experience . serve as an example of repressive tolerance? Have not the British authorities given the public a sense of power and change when in fact the dominant political parties have not become more susceptible to media challenges from the grass- roots? In the final analysis, the answer is affirmative. There is evidence that even when Open Door featured _individuals who were suspected of being sympathetic to the IRA,(Irish Republican Army), the fruits of political surveil- lance were exchanged within the BBC hierarchy. A.memo was transmitted from Stuart Wyton (Acting BBC Controller in Ulster) to Alistair Milne, the BBC Director of News and Public Affairs stating that Cecil Taylor (a person named 'C. Taylor' is listed in the 3229 BBC Handbook as being head ‘of Costing Services - Television) investigated and found out about the IRA sympathies of Paddy Doherty and Jim wray. Both' Irishman were appearing on an Open Door program on July 2, 1973 by the Bogside Community Association.- The memo is no stamped "confidential."3 The program was broadcast as planned. The information remains in the BBC files, however - evidence of the surveillance of a program series whose avowed goal was free speech. But this assessment need not dwell on pessimistic aspects of Open Door. The negative aspects have been addressed by 1) political limitations 2) high level BBC screening of program choices 3) political surveillance of the Bogside programmers. But even with the restrictions, the British have witnessed a reform, an adaption of the television media to pressure for public access. The result has not been without social benefit. To begin, the concept of television as a domain of the professional was successfully challenged. What had been.known by private video enthusiasts and artists about the ability of ‘ -many ”nonpprofessionals' to produce television programming ' was demonstrated to the British press and the larger viewing audience in convincing terms. There was also an increased social awareness for the British from the programming, despite political restrictions, about conditions and ideas in other parts of the nation. The expressed aim of Rowan Ayers, the access originator in the BBC, was to expand social awareness and the selection of programs did allow British people to express the diversity of lifestyles and interests (SEE APPENDIX EXHIBIT t). In comparison with the Netherlands concept of membership level #1 access, the British Open Door program spread_the opportunity, to groups and individuals not aligned with organized parties or factions with high numbers of requisite members. By doing so, the BBC spread the access opportunities and created a wider base for support of the concept of access broadcasting among the populace. Suggestions for alternative access policy in Britain Access in Britain's television.was and still is at this writing a limited venture. There are areas, however, through which the range of programs and their frequencies can.be. expanded. I From 1973-7h, Open Door received a parsimonious ration of broadcast time. The one hour per week for access allowed a massive waiting list of prospective programmers to develop. and made repeat access very difficult. Aware of this limitation, the BBC in 1975 planned to experiment with access programming five nights a week for an hour of television timef’ ”The demand for access is in tune with the temperament of the time but the demand is vitiated by the technology of the timee. 5 Technologically, the drive for public access television in Britain might be misdirected in the sense that Britain.has yet to develop cable technology or Other existing technology to;a level which would provide more access channels. A 1973 report on the state of British television tech-_ nology made mention of existing cable television systems but 1&2 did not recommend the expansion of cable television for the country.6 Had the opposite been true, had cable television been recommended as worthy of national expansion, the British would conceivably have had a greater selection of channels for access programming. Cable television, however, does present the possibility that access channels would become 'ghettoes,” with non-access channels and over-the-air broadcasters attracting attention and fragmenting the public. The viewing ghetto, even with only a few hundred or a few thousand viewers, might serve the function of a minority interest group adequately most of the time. But yet the other pervasive media channels might not provide the access to the larger audience at a crucial time. An alternative to the cable scheme in Britain would be a suggested splitting up of the BBC. ' If the BBC functions were split in two, giving an organization which ran the production facilities in the public interest, and another organization responsible, again in the public interest, for.drawing up a schedule and for the supervision of balance in the sense of seeing that the mix of programmes was good and varied.... then programmes would be available from three main sources: from groups and organizations which used their own equipment; from production companies and organizations... or from production companies and organizations which hired the facilities now used by the BBC. 7 Overseeing this plan would be a broadcast commission composed of members of the public selected on a representational basis and members of broadcast professionals. But neither the cable television plan nor the fractioned BBC would deal with the political and legal limitations which presently limit access broadcasting. For British broadcasting #3 to extend the range of access, quite apart from the technical expansion of channels, would require a restructure of the concept of political balance. To begin such a restructuring, the Aide memoirs, the document which established the political balance, should be made public and discussed openly. It might then be revised to provide broadcast access to all political parties and factions on the access channels which could be exempt from Aide memoirs requirements. ‘ Alternatively a “Fairness Doctrine“ requirement might- be incorporated into the BBC charter, basically saying that ”controversial issues and issues of public importance to the British people shall be provided reasonable opportunity for broadcast time." Implementation of this rule, on.a day- tooday basis could remain.with the BBC management with the remedy for improper or unfair implementation residing in acourt of law. Libel laws might also be revised to prevent the BBC or cable television companies from being sued by aggrieved parties when an access broadcaster has made a libelous statement. In other words, grant the broadcast organization immunity from libel prosecution arising from an access broadcast. I what are the chances of such changes being adopted in Britain to permit greater access to the media? For a society not prone to robust, open and earnest examination of government process by the public and the media, the chances nu are quite small. Even if the broadcasting atmosphere was liberalized, it would not necessarily mean greater partici- pation by the public in the processes and the surveillance of government in Britain. The access programs might be bountifully broadcast and express the feelings of the people but they, in the end, would have to relate in some way to political and social instruments through which citizens and viewers could press their conclusions. Otherwise, access programming, even as expansion of social awareness, would become part of the spectacle, “to be moved by, to applaud, -to cry over," but not to be a source of action or social participation. NOTES Notes Introduction: 1James D. Holloran, "What do you need to know? Are you going to be able to find out?” Paper presented at the International Symposium on Communication: Technology Impact and Policy, the Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania, march 23-25, 1972, p.11. Quoted by Yrjo Littunen and Kaarle Nordenstreng, 'Informational Broadcast Policy: The Finnish Experiment,“ Informational Mass Communication, ed. Kaarle Nerdenstreng Thelsinki, 19?E):'p.180. Chapter One: 1mropa Yearbook 1971:, Vol. 1, (London, 1971:). 2John Hopkins, ”Cable TV- The Right Thing For The Wrong Reasons," Film Video Extra, (Iondon, 1974). 3British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Handbook 122b, (Iondon, 1973). P.125. “Stuart Hood, “The politics of Television," in Sociolo of Mass Communications, ed. Denis Qua rmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1972), pp. ulO—hll. Sxenneth Lamb, ”Disclosure, Discretion, and Dissemblement: Broadcasting and the National Interest in the Perspective of a Publicly Owned Medium,“ in Secrec and Foreign Polio , ed. Thomas M. Franck and Edward Weisbafid, (New York, No Ye , 1971* ) , pp0237-238 . énbOd, peh12e 7Anthony Sampson, “Secrecy, News Management and the British Press,“ in Secrec and Forei Polio , ed. Thomas M. Franck and Edward WeIsbanH, (New fibrk, Nero), P0219- 8Sampson, pp.220-223. Netes Chapter One: (continued) 9Sampson, p.223. loOfficial Secrets Act, HMSO (Iondon, 1972). 11Sampson, p.22u. IZHOOd ’ p0u08 O 138BC Handbook 197u, p.278. luBBC Handbook 197%, p.278. 1533c Handbook 197a, p.280. 16 BBC Handbook 197“, p.280 17BBC Handbook 19?”, p.281 18800d , pou22 e 19sec Handbook 122a. pp.256-257. t 20Hiood, pofiio. ZanOd , poulse 22A Photocopy of this memo was provided for inspection by a prominent media affairs journalist in London who prefers to remain.anonymous. However, news stories on this Northern Ireland issue appeared in a number of British publications in the Summer of 1970. Netes Chapter Two: 1The Labour Party, ”The People and The media,“ (London, 197a), p.20. 2Chris Dunkley, "Open Door,“ Financial Times, April 5: 19739 P020 3I'nterviewwith James Danton and Emil Williams, two Blagk musicians, in London, England on August 2, 197 . ‘ “Brian Groombridge, Television and The People, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1972)‘p. 72. sarcombridge, p.71. 6Jerome Barron, Freedom othhe Press For Whom? Right of Access to Pass Redia (New Kerk, 1973) PP. 86-81e 7Hans magnus Enzenberger, ”Constituents of A Theroy Of The media,“ Sociolog of Mass Communications (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England) pp. 157-158. Lawrence Chenoweth, The American Dream of Success (NOrth Scituate, massachusetts, 167k), pp. I536. 8 9Chenoweth, p.6. 1oRichard Goodwin, The American Condition. (Garden City. N.Y., 197 , PD. " e 11Philip Mbyer, 'Elitism.and Newspaper Believability' in Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1973, p.36. 12Enzenberger, pp. 111-113. 13Groombridge, p.162. 1hBarron, p.1h6. m Chapter Two: (continued) 1SBarron, pp. 160-161. 16Barron, p. 163.' 17 Barron, pp. 166-169. - 18Barron, pp. 179-181. 19sarron, p.181. zowilliam Francois, ”media Access: Romance and Reality,” America, May 29, 1973, pp. 187-188. ' 21Daniel L. Brenner, “TV Access: The New Soapbox,“ America, May 6, 1972. P! #79. 22United States Government Printing Office, Federal Register, XL, pp. 30656-30660. 23Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, On The Cable-The Television of Abundance (New Iork, N. ., , pp. - . zuAlfred P. Sloan Foundation, pp. 230-231. 25Timothg Green, The universal g2: (New York, N.Y., 1972), P017 26Green, pp. 1&8-151. 27Groombridge, pp. 161-162. 28 , Groombridge, p. 162. 29Groombridge, p. 169. 3°Rowan Ayers interview, April 13, 1973 in London, “gland e Netes Chapter Two: (continued) 31 Rowan Ayers interview. Chapter Three: 1RowanAyers interview. 2Ed Goldwin interview, August 21, 197b, in London, England. 3Ed Goldwin interview. hRowan Ayers interview. 5Rowan Ayers interview. 6Rowan Ayers interview. 7Philip Howard, “Viewers to Make Own TV Programmes,‘ The Times, February 16,1973. PoS. 8Rowan Ayers interview. 93d Goldwin interview. After regular interview, the production staff of Open Door held a meeting where they rejected the National Rate Payers Association application on grounds of an upcoming General Election. 10Chris Dunkley, ”Open Door,” Financial Times, April 5, .1973, p.2. . 11Listener, April 26, 1973, p.8. 12Clive James, I'Television,“ Observer, May 20, 1973. 13Peter Lennon, 'Let The People Speak,” Sunday Times, my 15 s 1973 e 1“Bernard Davies, “One Man's Television,“ Broadcast, April 13. 1973. p.25. 12229. Chapter Three: (continued) 1SSean Day-Lewis, “Can Access Win Credit?“ Daily Telegraph, April 2, 1973. 16Interview with David Smith, a member of Teachers in Dentistry in September 1979. 17Philip Purser, "Open mouthed," Sunday Telegraph, 18Interview with Angela Kilmartin in London.during September 197h. 19Angela Kilmartin interview. 2 0Interview with Michael M. Barraclough in London during September 1978. Mr. Barraclough is affiliated with the Homeopathic Research and Educational Trust in England. Chapter Four: 1Letterpfrom Mike Fentiman, Senior Producer of Open Door, dated June 30, 1975. 2Ed Goldwin interview. 3The memo was found within the files of the Bogside ‘ Association at the Open Door headquarters in Hammersmith, London.on August 21, 197“. hMike Pentiman letter. sGroombridge, p. 165. 6Terry Hughes, ”The man Who Turned Off TV's Future,“ Sunda Times, January 7, 1973: P. 5h. .7HOod, p. #28. 8Hood, p. #28. Netes Chapter Four: (continued) 9Groombridge, p. 113. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Barron, Jerome, Freedom Of The Press For Whom? Right Of Access to The Mass media, New Ybrk: Random House, 1973. Brenner, Daniel, "TV Access: The New Soapbox,” America, May 6, 1972. - British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Handbook 197&, London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1973. Chenowth, Iawrence, The American Dream of Succes, Nerth Scituate: Duxbury Press, 197%. Europa Publications Ltd., Europa Yearbook 1224, Vbl. 1, Iondon: Europa Publications Ltd., 1979. Franck, Thomas M., and Weisband, Edward, ed. Secrec and Foreign Polio , New York: Oxford university Press, i97h. Francois, William, "media Access: Romance and Reality,“ America, May 29, 1973. Goodwin, Richard N., The American Condition, Garden City: Doubleday and Company 0.. 9? . Green, Timothy, The universal Eye, New York: Stein and Day, 1972. . . Groombridge, Brian, Television and The People, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 19 . Hopkins, John, "Cable TV: The Right Thing For The wrong Reasons," in Film Video Extra, Iondon: June 197k. Iabour Party "The People and The Media,“ London: The Ia‘oour mrty’ 197 I . Littunen, Irjo, and Nordenstreng, Ka'arle, ”Informational Broadcasting Policy: The Finnish EXperiment,' in Informational mass Communication, ed. Kaarle Nordenstreng, Helsinki: Tammi Publishers, 1975. HbQuail, Denis, ed. Sociolog, of Mass Communication, ’Harmondsworth, HiddIesex, fifigiand: Penguin Backs, 1972. Meyer, Philip, 'Elitism and Newspaper Believability," Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 1973. . Official Secrets Act, London: HMSO, 1972. Sloan,Alfred P. Foundation, On The Cable - The Television Of Abundance, New York: McGraw Hill, 197 . United States Government Printing Office, Federal Register, Vbl.IXL, Washington: GPO, 1975. APPENDICES APPENDIX.L List of Open Door Programs 1973 A r11 2 Sa n P ngo Community Trust: London charity which works with homeless people. April 2 liberation of Life Style: Neville Shulman suggested ways of changing individual life style. The Responsible Society: A group which dealt with the pressures of a permissive society on the family. April 16 BIack iSachers: A group of black teachers discussed the effect_of British education systems on black children. April 20 . rees For People: A group explained why trees are precious in Britain and discussed their plan to restore trees to the environment, with the help of schools. Teachers in Dentistry: A group of university teachers in dentistry told about the merits of prevention in dental care. * Ha Pegd%ack: An opportunity for viewers to take up points raised by the preceding programs. Ha 1h EE§€_End Channel One: A group called the Basement Project Film Group from London's East End made a film.and ' television.program about their neighborhood. Ma 21 Yer: 2000: members of a society who opposed the City of York council's proposals for an inner ring road and who had guidance for the other local pressure groups in Britain. June h ~ TFansex Liberation Group: A group who discussed sex changes and the problems facing individuals who change sex by surgery. APPENDIX A List of Open Door Programs 1973 June 11 Birmingham Poets: A group which criticized current television presentation of poetry and showed different ideas of presentation. The Association of British Investigators: A program which investigated some form of control on private investigators. June 18 , Street Farmers: This group outlined a philosophy of the development of agricultural programs for the cities and villages of Britain. The Council For Academic Freedom: .A group who discussed the threat to academic freedom at British.universities and schools. June 2 ' ec vists Anonymous Fellowship Trust: A group of prisoners and ex-convicts showed how they looked at the world and how the world sees them. Jul 2 The ESgside Community Association: A community group talked about itself and its future in northern Ireland. July 2 . C eaners Action: A group of women.who work as night Janitors demanded better working conditions and wages. Se tember 20 e The Aetherius Society: A group of people talked about their feelings about other intelligent beings in the universe. October 1 ChiszcE Women's Aid: women and children.cf a hostel in tendon talk about the 'battered wives' syndrome of which they are victims. October 8 Law Clerks: A group of student lawyers and lawyers took a critical look at the services lawyers provide. .APPENDIXHL List of Open Door Programs 1973 October 15 . Tower Hamlets Truants: A group of children tell what is wrong with the schools and why they'wonit go. The Bootstrap Union: .A group of teachers talk about ways to change the role of schools in deprived areas. October 22 The London Trade unions and Old Age Pensioners Joint Committee: A group of senior citizens in south London talked about the economic hardships facing old age people in Britain and how it can be changed for their benefit. October'zg ustr a Common-Ownership movement: A number of representatives of firms in the Hidlands and Yorkshire areas of Britain talk about a system of common ownership of workers and capital. November g Randwick cnservation Committee: Members of a group in Bandwick, Gloucestershire talked about ways of keeping rural areas intact during times of deve10pment. November 12' ' The if a. I Club: med about self-help for sufferers of cystitis and what can be done for the illness with home Care 0 November 1% ' s Assoc aticn: A group of theatrical teachers talked about putting children on the stage and the details of theater schools in Britain. November 26 The Christian Parity Group: Talked about the reasons why’ women should be ordained in church in the same manner as ”no December a ‘ a cna ypsy Education Council: This program discussed the problems of gypsys in.Britain. December 10 Down‘YOur Ward: Produced by the National Association.of Hospital.Broadcasting Organizations. This program talked about in-hospital broadcasting in Britain. APPENDIX‘A List of Open Door Programs 19?“ Januar% 22 bera on Films: Demonstration.cf portable television. use in community affairs. February_1 _ -?arent to Parent Information on Adoption: This program dealt with the need of unwanted children to have full time parents. Febru 10 King‘s College Post-Graduate Discussion Group: Students of English read and analyzed werdwcrth's 'Tintern.Abbey.' February 11 1 fine in a Thousand: Parents of deaf children talked about improper advice given to then.bv doctors and education advisers. February ‘18 Muscle Rania: A weightlifter attempted to remove some myths about weightlifting and to lobby for health clubs. February 25 The British Association of Retired Persons and the Society for the Rescue of Destitute Animals: This two part program.talked at first about the problems of middle-class retired people and later showed, how, for the last 11 years a Manchester group cared-for abandoned animals. March b . The Homeopathic Research and Educational Trust: .A group aimed to get full recognition of the value of Homeopathic medicine and its utility for Britain's National Health Service. ' March 11 - The 73 Club: This program.analyzed'a boys club in.Glasgow. Scotland which operated to breakdown.the social barriers between boys.. March 18 Avonmouth Residents Association: A group of citizens from Bristol showed the environmental problems faced by the citizens of.Avonmouth. . APPENDIXWL list of Open Door Programs i97b March 25 grant workers' Rights: .A group of NOttingham. Indian immigrants attacked the lack of support by the trade unions in Britain for colored workers._ April 1,, Jericho: A.film.made by two women from Oxford. The film dealt with life in a small community in that city. April 8 ‘Black Feet in The Snow‘: A play for television produced by a group of west Indians called the Radical Alliance of Poets and Players. The play dealt with life of the West Indians in London during the early 19608. APPENDIX 3 Survey Responses of Open Door Participants Responses were gathered from 17 of the 31 programmers who had left addresses and/or phone numbers. The programmers were polled to learn why they elected to take to television and what kind of feedback resulted from the broadcast. The responses are paraphrased below. 1. Saint Mungo Community Trust: This organization received two hundred letters and offers of support. Mr. Jim Herne declined to discuss the matter further and declined to answer a written query. 2. The Reponsible Society: 'Media is against people like use, nor is media interested in sexual casualties of permissive living.” One hundred letters of support arrived, a few donations and contact was established with similar groups in Britain. . 3. Teachers in Dentistry: Feeling existed that adequate coverage by BBC of preventive dentistry does not exist. The reaction was favorable from the public. Some members of the House of Commons asked to see the film and Britain's Chief Dental Officer rebutted the charges. The program was part of a publicity effort to extend the preventive dental lobby. h. East End Channel One: “We did this program to make a parody of television and at the same time to talk about our lives and our community. We received alot of letters from neighborhood people who felt very proud after seeing the broadcast." 5. Chiswick women’s Aid: Object of the program was to make money through donations and bring public attention to the plight.of bettered wives. ”Alot of letters came in with some money e i 6. The London Trade Unions and Old Age Pensioners Joint Committee: "The aim of the program.was to make the public pensioner minded. we don't think the press gives sufficient play to our story. After the program.we felt alct more people were pensioner minded. We had people write and ask how they could help." 7. Randwick Conservation Committee: Program was made to express the committee's feeling about what should be done with English countryside. Thirty letters of support were received. "We were put in touch with other groups and a group in Birmingham asked for our program outline. The _Federation of Amenities began supporting us.” APPENDIX.B Survey Responses of Open Door Participants 8. The U'& I Club: ”TV gives no average of the illness.“ The organization wanted to put the case of cystitis sufferers on television in.an 'unbiased' way. Twelve thousand letters of support arrived. The Independent Television News organization elected to use the club for another broadcast. Magazines commissioned articles. 9. Arts Association: Program was done to answer the most commonly asked questions about art education. “A large response" was received. 10. The Christian Parity Group: The group wanted to pose .the question of whether women should be priests in the Church of England. Two hundred letters were received, about one hundred-and fifty in support of women ordination. .A women's conference at the Berlin Council of Churches asked to use the film. more women have approached churches and have offered services. 11. Parent to Parent Information.on Adoption: Objective for using BBC was two-fold. First, to get the organization better known and then to {put the record straight' about adoption services. Response was six hundred letters of support and doubling of the groups membership. 12. One in.a Thousand: “He hoped to get local doctors to look more carefully at deaf children.and to press for better‘ hearing aids and deaf education.“ Three hundred letters of support arrived. Other parent groups requested to see the BBC videotape. "A big hearing center is now revising some of its concepts.” A local medical paper commissioned an article on diagnosis of deafness. 13. muscle Mania: “Main purpose of program was to change attitudes, bad attitudes, about weightlifting. People regard weightlifting as weird because of media treatment.” Five to six thousand letters were received along with six hundred phone calls asking for more detailed information about the sport. 1h. Homeopathic Research and Educational Trust: Purpose of program was to put over views on medicine to the public. Ten thousand letters were received along with additional press queries on the subject of homeopathic medicine. APPENDIX.B Survey Reponses of open Door Participants 15. Jerihco: Aim of the program.was to do portray a changing community and perhaps draw the people together. Reaction within the community was favorable but no letters were received. "Some people are more friendly to each other. The vicar is more open to suggestion. But dondt know if this is because of the program.“ 16. Black Feet in-The Snow: Program was an attempt to portray part of the black experience in Britain's recent past, an experience not treated in the media. Aim of program was also to get publicity for the group of artists and performers and hopefully open the media to black artists in Britain. “Artistically, program was a winner but financially a loser. From artists point of view it is a failure but for access concept it is good. People wrote and asked about joining the artists but the nucleus of the group dissolved. Black people in London now do have something to look up to.” 1?. Liberation Films: Program attempted to intergrate film production into community politics. Mr. Tony Wickert declined- to answer questions further and to return telephone calls. S "'TITI'IMITILHQMIljfijjtflfflflm'tflfljfifllflfifllfl”