ATTEMPTS TO TELEVISE PARLIAMENT 467 In equipped viewing areas in the Palace of Westminster, Peers, Members of the House of Commons, and the press could observe the televised proceedings. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the following week (February 13-15) complete, thirty-minute, tenminute, and five-minute edited summaries were made available. The political correspondent of the Times, David Wood, commented on the result: For what seemed minutes on end we watched one old boy after another with his head well down over his notes, like a golfer driving off from the tee, going through a monologue as though he had a Dictaphone for audience. One soon felt sure that any parliamentary Hansard in extenso would need speakers to change their style to address the outside audience, rather than their audience in the Chamber, much as speakers nowadays do at party conferences. Is that what Parliament wants? The contrast between most backbench speakers and the highly professional commentators who did the links was sharp, and encouraged a familiar feeling that the commentators ought to be made life peers in the next list because they are obviously much abler at the business of government than those who serve. That is to say no more than that those who go on telesion will always be judged by the medium's own criteria.33 In the meantime, the House of Commons had been making arrangements for recording their proceedings in sound. On December 11, 1967, after a two-hour debate, the House of Commons approved "the making of sound recordings of its proceedings for an experimental period for the purpose of providing for Members specimen programmes."34 House Leader Richard Crossman suggested this experiment with sound broadcasting alone for "not merely its merits for mass communication but its merits from the point of view of historical record, since, surely, a sound version of our proceedings is worth recording and keeping for ourselves, even if we decide not to publish it to the world."35 This represents an interesting judgment on Crossman's part and an important shift of emphasis: to keep an historical record rather than educate the populace, which was the main premise in previous discussions on sight and sound combined. Opponents felt that this was merely the old "foot-in-the-door" strategy―a subtle way to get television in by first giving entry only to sound. Furthermore, opponents still felt that there was no strong desire coming from Members of Parliament or the public, but that the impetus was mainly from mass-communication industry people.36 Also, the cost, although admittedly very small compared with tele 29-801 0-74-App.- -32 468 JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING FALL 1972 vision, was still great enough to argue against the experiment in sound. The debate was also of particular interest, for it was the first occasion for summarizing comparative advantages of sound over television. The experiment in sound began on April 23, 1968, and continued for four weeks.37 This closed circuit radio experiment involved the addition of only one microphone, and cost only about $10,000, almost all of which could be covered by BBC. (The cost of television experimentation and of permanent sound and sight coverage, if it came to that, would have to be borne by the taxpayers through action by the House of Commons.) Some standing committee sessions were also recorded. But the Government had no plans at that time to explore further the possibility of a television experiment.38 Late in 1968 the House of Commons hesitated to go further with radio coverage. In November a three-man subcommittee of the Services Committee,39 after studying the spring experiment, recommended that an edited sound broadcast of Commons proceedings (approximately 28 minutes to be carried on BBC Radio 4 at 11 PM) should be undertaken and that on special parliamentary occasions, live and continuous broadcasting could be offered.40 But in December the Services Committee voted 9 to 2 to reject the subcommittee's recommendation because "present financial circumstances preclude any recommendation for expenditure on a project which is known to be controversial."41 The Committee did recommend, however, to explore further the possibility of some modified, less expensive experiment. In the House of Lords consideration of television moved ahead, but not very rapidly. After studying the February 1968 experiment, the Select Committee on Broadcasting published its report in June,2 but the House of Lords did not debate the experiment until March 20, 1969.43 The debate focused on feasibility, not desirability. It seemed apparent that three main problems needed to be resolved before any more progress could be made: (1) the legal aspects of defamation and Parliamentary Privilege had to be clarified, (2) the House of Commons had to change its mind because the Lords could not go it alone, and (3) technical advances had to be made (especially some control of the bright lights needed for color television) in order to make the physical conditions acceptable. ATTEMPTS TO TELEVISE PARLIAMENT Post-1968 Developments 469 During 1969 the question of whether or not select committees of the Commons should be televised received renewed attention, due to experiences of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. The committee held hearings early in the year in various towns around the country in its endeavor to secure information on the problem of nonwhite children dropping out of school.44 Television followed the committee but had to rely on interviews with committee members and witnesses outside the committee room or in other settings, which proved to be unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons.45 Somewhat irked that the leadership of the Commons did not permit their sessions to be televised, the 16-member committee (composed of both pro- and anti-television people) "agreed unanimously that it would be worth trying an experiment involving the televising of the proceedings of Select Committees meeting outside the House."46 On Friday, November 21, 1969, the House of Commons held a five-hour debate on Robert Sheldon's private-member's bill calling for the Commons to experiment with television. The passage of three years since the historic debate of November 24, 1966, the experience of the Commons with their sound experiment, and the experience of the Lords with television, of course added some new information and insights, but essentially the major issues (to be summarized below) were still the same. The motion, however, did not pass.47 In December, 1969, a joint committee of both Houses which had been studying the legal aspects, recommended that if there were audio-visual coverage of debates, the media should be given absolute privilege as is now given to members of Parliament. This goes beyond the qualified protection given the mass media in the Defamation Act of 1952.48 The issue of televising debates faded away as attention focused on the 1970 election. But the televising (in color) of the ceremonial opening of the new Parliament on July 2, 1970,49 was a reminder of the appeal of the television medium, especially in color. Issues of great magnitude such as the turmoil in Northern Ireland and the entry into the European Common Market have renewed with greater vigor the claim that parliamentary debates should be televised to the 470 JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING FALL 1972 public. In November 1971, over 40 MPs requested a debate on experimentally televising debates.50 What will result is still unknown. Comment: The Issues Involved Many significant issues are involved for Britain—and they apply in varying degrees in the United States as well. Feasibility: By now it is quite clear that the mechanical apparatus necessary to record in sound and vision can be installed and operated without disrupting proceedings. It is generally conceded (although many are still not convinced) that any edited program of the televised proceedings (a late evening half-hour edited version is the form most commonly spoken of to reach the public) could be constructed with sufficient swiftness, accuracy, completeness, fairness, and propriety-although even advocates admit it would be difficult. Advocates claim that televising and broadcasting debates has worked well in other countries, but opponents are quick to point out weaknesses in the comparisons. Support for televising seems to be growing among the MPs, especially among the newer, younger ones who have grown up with the medium; but as yet there is no clear demand for it from the public. Legal aspects of defamation are yet to be definitely clarified. Will the speakers and televising authorities have unquestioned right to immunity? The high cost of recording, publishing, and storing the visual record, and to a lesser degree the sound record, is still a major stumbling block. But thought of creating such a rich historical archive is appealing. Desirability: Advocates contend that democracy will be strengthened, for the general electorate will become better informed about, and will be brought closer to, their government. Opponents, however, point out that such familiarity may well breed contempt for, or at least boredom and disillusionment with, the complex, time-consuming, uninteresting, and sometimes bizarre nature of democratic proceedings. Some fear that parliamentary debating will become an increasingly meaningless ritual, for real decision making will take place behind some closed doors where no cameras will be lurking. Advocates contend that power and prestige will shift from the presently overly powerful executive back to the legislators, where it belongs. Advocates predict that political programs and panels on television and radio would not be pushed aside as redundant or artificial, for interest ATTEMPTS TO TELEVISE PARLIAMENT 471 in them might well increase with the televising of parliamentary proceedings. Furthermore, newspapers might be stimulated to devote more space to parliamentary affairs. But newspapers are demanding that if television enters the debating chambers then so too should flash cameras, and few if any MPs relish that possibility. Critics contend that the intimate, dignified atmosphere so fundamental to parliamentary debating will be ruined, and speakers will play to the television audience, becoming theatrical performers. Many fear that television will give exposure and prestige to abnormal behavior, to flamboyant speaking, to photogénic qualities, to moments of conflict, and to extreme points of view, so that the unemotional, intelligent, nonaggressive, middle-of-the-road person will go unnoticed and unsung. Advocates, on the other hand, feel that the camera will expose and reduce superficial theatrics, ungentlemanly behavior, unnreasonableness, incompetence, arrogance, and insincerity; and that the statements made will be on a higher plane and will be more carefully prepared. Should the people be permitted to see and hear their legislators at work in debating chambers and committee rooms? Will government leaders in Britain and the United States be seen and heard daily by thousands rather than by a few hundred huddled in the galleries? The British have increasingly probed the question during the 1960s, with the "archaic" House of Lords first to amble into the camera lights, delighted to show their heels to a hesitant House of Commons, the nervous holder of the purse. Experiments, voluminous oral and written testimony, and much committee labor have built a substantial body of information on the issue and ve laid to rest some of the more extravagant claims both for and against electronic reporting. Although many unanswered questions remain, it might not be unreasonable to predict that someday the Hansard pencil will be supplemented by tape and film. (Note: See p. 451 for information on Parliament's October 1972 decision against televising debates.) Footnotes 1 See Parliamentary Debates (House of Lords), 5th ser., vol. 212, cols. 5, 15, 33, 53-55, 112–13. 2 Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), 5th ser., vol. 599, cols. |