CHRISTOPHER MAYHEW is Member of 
Parliament for Woolwich East 


TRACT 318 

Price Two Shillings 

• 

THE FABIAN SOCIETY 

11 Dartmouth Street, London, S.W.l 

Note.-This pamphlet, like all publications of the 
FABIAN SOCIETY, represents not the collective 
view of the Society but only the view of the individual 
who prepared it. The responsibility of the 
Society is limited to approving the publications 
which · it issues as worthy of consideration within the 
Labour Movement. 

September, 1959 



I. First Principles 
W
W
HAT should the Labour Party do about commercial television? 
Should we give it our blessing and allot it more channels? Keep it as 
it is? Abolish it? 

A Labour Government would not be able to dodge these awkward 
questions indefinitely. Immediate decisions would be needed on whether 
(or how far) to reform lTV before the Television Act expires in 1964, and 
whether or not to start a third channel without delay. Eventually (no doubt 
after a commission of enquiry) decisions would be needed on the number 
of new TV channels to be opened, and the way they should be run. 

In due course a Labour Government would also have to decide its policy 
towards the BBC. The present Charter runs out in 1962, and there is much 
to be said for some drastic changes in the BBC's constitution, to make the 
television service more independent of sound and less burdened with top-
level pressures of various kinds. But reform of the BBC raises fewer 
questions of principle for socialists. A Labour Government should simply 
extend the present Charter until 1964 and decide the BBC's future then, 
in the light of the commission of inquiry's report. 

This pamphlet is therefore mainly about commercial television-about 
Labour's policy towards lTV over the next five years, and the principles 
and practice of commercial television as they appear in the light of 
expenence. 

May I make it clear at this point-since I have often been attacked 
by the commercial lobby as an 'interested party' in the television controversy 
-that I stand to gain no financial or professional advantage 
whatever, directly or indirectly, by criticising commercial television. It is 
in the other camp -among the newspaper proprietors, radio and television 
manufacturers, advertising agencies and programme contractors-that we 
find the true vested interest. 

* 


In past controversies about commercial television much of the argument 
has been about whether a democratic television service should simply 'give 
the viewers what they want'. Some people said that it should; others that 
it . shouldn't. 

The surprising thing, in retrospect, was the assumption on both sides 
that commercial television by its very nature was bound to give the public 
what it wanted. Arguing on abstract principles which would have delighted 
Adam Smith, the commercial lob by maintained that since the only test 
of whether a programme was wanted was the number of people who 
watched it; and since the more people who watched, the larger would be the 
advertising revenue, a television system whose main aim was to raise advertising 
revenue would automatically give the public what it wanted. There 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

would be a perfect identity of interest between programme contractors, 
advertisers and viewers. 

This pamphlet challenges this view. It suggests that the interests of 
programme companies and advertisers conflict with the interests of viewers 
at so many points that the whole theory of a self-regulating system breaks 
down. It maintains that the urge to maximise advertising revenue, so , far 
from ensuring that viewers 'get what they want' is a serious obstacle to 
their ever getting it. It attempts to explain why the viewing public, though 
preferring lTV to BBC programmes in the proportion of two to one, has 
little real respect for the commercial system and would overwhelmingly 
prefer the public-service principle as a basis for a third TV servJce. 

* 


The next five sections describe how this comes about. Section 2 shows 
how the profit motive, so far from 'giving the viewers what they want' 
robs them of many of their best-liked programmes. Section 3 shows how 
it robs them of a genuine choice of programme. Section 4 shows how the 
profit motive gives viewers more American programmes than they want. 
Section 5 shows how it results in a far larger amount of advertising being 
broadcast than viewers want-or than the Television Act or Parliament 
intended -and in this advertising being broadcast at the most irritating 
moments from the viewers' point of view. Section 6 shows how the profit 
motive debases children's programmes. 

In Section 7 it is shown how the programme contractors form a very 
tight monopoly, and constitute an excessive concentration of power in our 
society. Section 8 deals with the problem of reforming lTV; and Section 9 
with the question of the 'third channel'. 

Fortunately, of course, we do not have pure commercial television in 
this country. Thanks largely to pressure from the Labour Party, safeguards 
were written into the Television Act in 1954 to protect viewers from the 
automatic working of the profit system. Even the Tory Government did 
not altogether trust the programme companies. As its 1954 White Paper 
put it: 

'It would be necessary to introduce safeguards against possible abuses, 
and a controlling body would be required for this purpose, for regulatingthe conduct of the new stations, for exercising a general oversight. of the 
programmes, and for advising on appropriate matters.' 

The 'controlling body' which emerged was, of course, the Independent 
Television Authority, a non-profit-making public-service body appointed by 
the Postmaster~General to supervise the-activities of the programme contractors; 
to protect the interests of the viewers; and to ensure that the safeguards 
in the Act are properly observed. As we shall see, however, the 
Authority has never seriously challenged the power of the programme companies, 
and on the rare occasions when the companies' activities have been 
curbed in the viewers' interest, this has been in response to pressure from 
Parliament and public opinion. 


2. How Popular Are the Programmes? 
T
T
HE theory that commercial television 'gives the public what it wants' 
breaks down at a dozen points. First and foremost, it ignores the distinction, 
which has come increasingly to the fore in recent years, between 
the programmes which viewers want as individuals and the programmes 
they want as a mass. The first category includes programmes which, though 
not necessarily high-brow, appeal to individual tastes and interests, such as 
programmes on science, cricket, greyhound racing, gardening, cooking, horse 
racing, local affairs, table tennis, football, psychology, current affairs, 
athletics, ballet, opera and religion. These programmes, though naturally 
appealing to smaller audiences, all have a strong and enthusiastic following. 
They are almost always British in style, content and production, and tend 
to be of a higher standard in Britain than in other countries. But since 
they attract less-than-maximum audiences, there is no financial incentive 
whatever for the programme companies to broadcast programmes of this 
kind. Indeed, if raising advertising revenue were the sole motive for a 
television service, they would probably never be seen by viewers at all. 

Programmes of the second type are those which appeal to viewers not 
as individuals with special tastes and interests, but as units in a mass. These 
programmes are deliberately designed, for commercial purposes, to appeal 
to everyone at once -young and old, bright and dull, male and female, 
Scots, Irish, Welsh, English and American. These programmes consist of 
Westerns, thrillers, variety, low-brow and middle-brow plays, serials and 
quiz games. They· too have a devoted -and much larger -following. 
Programmes of this type are produced best and in greatest abundance in 
the United States, and tend to be American in style, content and production. 

It is often assumed that the first type of programme is less keenly 
enjoyed by those who watch it than the second type. In fact, however, 
exactly the opposite is true. This can be seen from the reports of BBC 
Audience ·Research, which gives figures not only . for the size of t e audience 
attracted by a programme, but also for the 'audience reaction'. This La.st 
figure-the Appreciation Index -is compiled by asking the panel of some 
hundreds of viewers to declare whether they thought the programme 'very 
good', 'good', 'fair', 'bad', or 'very bad'. A programme which was well 
liked might get an Appreciation Index of 75; one which was disliked might 
score 55. 

Now if the programme which attracted the largest number of viewers 
was also the most keenly enjoyed, there would be a positive correlation 
between the 'Appreciation Index' and the 'size of audience' index. The 
better the programme was liked, the larger would be the audience. In fact, 
however, such correlation as there is works in the opposite direction. It 
is those programmes, whether high-brow or low-brow, which attract the 
smaller audiences, which tend to be the most keenly enjoyed. And this is, 
indeed, what might be expected. A tailor-made suit will naturally be better 
liked than one bought off the peg. 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

There is thus a plain contradiction between 'giving the viewers what they 
want' and striving at all times to get the largest possible audience. To the 
extent that rrv is motivated by the urge to maximise audiences and advertising 
revenue -and this is its essential characteristic-it robs viewers of 
many of their most keenly enjoyed programmes. 

This glaring defect in the commercialisers' case was dimly recognised by 
the Government when the Television Act was being framed. It lies behind 
the provision in the Act which lays on the non-profiit-making Independent 
Television Authority the duty of ensuring 

'that the programmes maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter' 

(Clause 3 l(b) ). 

This provision of the Act has been of some value to ·viewers. Without it, 
the programme contractors would probably, like their American counterparts, 
have banished minority programmes from their schedules altogether, 
apart from an occasional prestige programme. Certainly this policy would 
have paid them well; and even as it is these programmes are virtually 
banned from normal viewing hours, i.e. between 7.0 and 10.0. But pressure 
from Parliament and public opinion -and the possibility of retribution 
from a Labour Government -has persuaded programme companies to 
broadcast minority programmes at least in off-peak hours when the financial 
loss is smallest. The BBC recently made a comparative analysis of BBC 
and rrv programmes between 7.0 and 10.30 daily during 1958. It showed 
that the proportion of 'serious' programmes (a rather narrower term than 
'minority' programmes as we have defined them) broadcast by the BBC 
was 34 per cent and by ITA only 10 per cent. 

Though mass audience programmes on lTV seem consistently better than 
on the BBC, commercial television lags behind in the minority programmes 
-including sport, documentaries, and current affairs. And though Independent 
Television News has a good reputation, the advent of commercial 
television in due course had the effect of cutting down the proportion of 
time allowed to news broadcasts in normal viewing hours. 

The programme companies' defenders argue that their striving for maximum 
audiences is 'democratic' and portray those who wish to have minority 
programmes broadcast at normal viewing times as 'authoritarians'. They 
apparently believe that a society where tastes and interests are decided by 
majority vote and then imposed on everyone is more democratic than a 
society where everyone is encouraged to develop their own individual tastes 
and interests. · 

In fact, of course, the opposite is true; and so far from being democratic, 
commercial television is, in the long run, a threat to democracy. It fosters, 
and thrives on, uniformity of tastes and interests; and steamrollers minorities. 
A genuinely democratic television service would cater for viewers 
as individuals, and within the limits of what is practicable give the individual 
viewer the programme he wants at the time he wants it. 

In Britain, commercial television is compelled by law and public opinion 
to make some gestures towards viewers' individual tastes. In the United 
States, where there is no such compulsion, it makes virtually no gestures 
at all. 


3. How Much Choice ? 
C
C
OMMERCIAL television fails to 'give the public what it wants' in 
another important respect. Even where several commercial systems are 
competing, it fails to give viewers a genuine choice of programme, and 
instead broadcasts similar, or even identical, programmes simultaneously. 
The process is well described by an American observer as follows : 

'What the networks want is, simply, to maximise the total audience 
watching their programmes, and in pursuing this aim they have followed 
with remarkable thoroughness Professor Hotelling's classic prescription 
for "duopolistic competition" (monopoly means one supplier duopoly 
two). The standard case in economics deals with a street twenty blocks 
long containing a single grocery store on the down-town corner of block 
five. A second grocer comes along: where shall he place his store? 
Public interest calls for placement in block fifteen, guaranteeing that no 
resident of the street will be farther than five blocks from a grocer. But 
the new grocer can secure the biggest market by placing his store on the 
up-town corner of block five, right across the street from the competition, 
which will make him the more convenient of the two stores for the 
residents of fifteen blocks. 

'Operating to maximise advertising revenue rather than serve the public 
interest, the television networks have often followed this model, programming 
Phil Silvers against Milton Berle, Robert Montgomery Presents 
against Climax, Steve Allen and Guests against Ed Sullivan and Guests. 
The habit of identical programming is ingrained in the networks.'1 

Even in Britain, where one of the competitive channels is non-commercial 
the same process takes place, though to a limited extent. On one occasion 
this summer, British viewers were not only shown tennis at Wimbledon on 
both channels simultaneously -they were shown identical matches simultaneously; 
and on at least one occasion, both channels interrupted the same 
exciting tennis match to broadcast simultaneously the same unexciting 
interview with a tennis personality. 

Since it is not the BBC's overriding aim to attract the largest audiences, 
British viewers are spared the worst defects of the commercial system. But 
when half-a-dozen different channels, under the spur of private financial 
profit, broadcast identical or very similar programmes at the same time, it is 
ridiculous to claim that commercial TV 'gives the public what it wants'. 

Aware of the growing exasperation of viewers, supporters of the pro-
gramme companies are suggesting that the BBC should devote itself entirely 
to broadcasting minority programmes, thus relieving the companies of the 
moral and legal responsibility of doing this themselves. Earl de la Warr, 
who was Postmaster-General when the Television Act was passed, said in 
the House of Lords recently : 

Martin Mayer, Madison Avenue U.S.A., p. 195: The Bodley Head. 


OMMERCIAL TELEVI ION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

'After all, I had some responsibility for initiating commercial television, 
and what the Government always stood for from the beginning was the 
maintenance of one set of programmes which was entirely uncommercial, 
with a guaranteed revenue. Why the BBC should feel that they have to 
degrade (sic) their programmes in order to compete with another system, 
I just cannot see. It seems to me a great pity . . . I cannot see why there 
cannot be some discussion and some overall planning with regard to 
programmes so that a real choice can be given to the public.'1 

The programme companies know that millions could be added to their 
profits if they were allowed to broadcast only the mass-appeal programmes. 
With a generosity that deceived nobody, Associated-Rediffusion recently 
offered to subsidise a 'cultural' third channel to the extent of millions of 
pounds a year. 

Experience shows that if television is to be expanded in such a way that 
viewers get the programmes they want, there must be deliberate planning 
to ensure a genuine choice of programme. This is incompatible with the 
laissez-faire approach to television, and with the aim of maximising advertising 
revenue. 

Han ard, Lord , Vol. 218, No. 78, 3rd June 1959. 



4. Americanisation 
M
M
ANY American mass-audience programmes are widely and deservedly 
popular. Light entertainment television is produced better, and in far 
greater abundance, in the United States than anywhere else. The characteristic 
contribution of lTV to British television has been the popularisation 
of Westerns, thrillers, serials, variety and quiz shows produced in the United 
States or based on American ideas. 

The question is -how much American material do viewers really want, 
and how much is merely pushed on to them because it suits the financial 
interests of the programme companies? 

ITA's official figure for the amount of American TV material broadcast 
is 14 per cent, and from the point of view of British artists and technicians, 
this figure is satisfactory and has been accepted by the TUC. But from 
the standpoint of the viewer, the figure needs closer examination. 14 per 
cent is the proportion of the total output of lTV, including morning and 
afternoon programmes, religious services, etc. More important to the 
viewer is the proportion of American material broadcast at times when 
he is actually looking-in -between 7.0 and 10.0 in the evening. This 
figure is probably not less than 30 per cent. 

And this 30 per cent would exclude 'mid-Atlantic' programmes, i.e. 
programmes produced in Britain and shown to British viewers but tailored 
for American tastes and primarily intended for the American market. In 
these 'British' films, when a man takes a taxi it is called a 'cab'; when he 
dresses for dinner he puts on a 'tuxedo'. Hybrid commercialised films of 
this kind are of growing importance in British television. 

Mr. Val Parnell, Managing Director of Associated Television, apparently 
takes pride in this development. He writes : 

'Television has broken through national boundaries and is now the 
recognised popular world medium. It is because of this fact that ATV 
has staked a major claim in the field of American TV film-making and 
distribution .... The substantial Anglo-American resources now linked 
in the Independent Television Corporation provide opportunities for cooperation 
in the production and distribution of television films which will 
be of direct benefit to Britain and the United States and through worldwide 
distribution will foster the growth and maturity of international 
television. London can become a second and perhaps more lastingHollywood.'1 (my italics) 

Mr. Parnell is an admirably clear exponent of the ideals and standards 
of 'Admass'. He holds Hollywood up as an example for London, and 
apparently sets out to liberate Londoners from their provincial habits 
of speech, manners ana dress, and from their backward and insular culture. 

ATV'.~ Partners in the USA, Associated Television Ltd., 1959. 


OMMER lAL TELEVI ION -WHAT I TO BE DONE. 

Unlike Mr. Parnell, however, most British people regard American television 
not as an example, but as a deadly warning. While welcoming a fair 
ration of American television programmes, they regard with horror the 
possibility of creating in Britain a hybrid mid-Atlantic culture based on 
the approach to television which Mr. Parnell describes. Moreover their 
dislike and distrust of American television is shared by most intelligent 
Americans. Mr. Ed Murrow, for example, speaking at Chicago in October 
1958, had this to say about the American television industry: 

'If there are any historians about fifty or one hundred years from now, 
and there should be preserved kinescopes for one week of all three networks, 
they will find there recorded in black and white or colour, 
evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the 
world in which we live.' 

Nobody doubts that there are millions of pounds to be made by linking 
up British and American television in the manner recommended by Mr. 
Parnell. Vast fortunes can be made by those who can show on British 
screens programmes which have already paid their way on the American 
market. But those who care for television standards and for the British 
way of life will do their utmost to put a quick end to the kind of developments 
Mr. Parnell describes. 


5. The Commercials 
A
A
NOTHER resp~c~ in w~ich. commercial television fails to 'give viewers 
what they want 1s that 1t g1ves them far too many commercials, of the 
wrong type, at the wrong time. 

Under pressure of the Opposition, the Tory Government wrote a number 
of provisions about the amount, content and placing of commercials into 
the Television Act. And they made the Postmaster-·General as well as the 
Authority responsible for ensuring that these provisions were carried out. 
In practice, however, weakness and indolence on the part of the Authority 
and successive PMG's have allowed the programme companies to make 
millions of pounds at viewers' expense by evasion of the Act. The two 
principal evasions concern the 'natural break' clause and the 'six minute 
average'. It is worth examining both of these in some detail, as they 
illustrate clearly the excessive power of the programme companies vis-a-vis 
the Authority, which is the fundamental weakness of lTV as a whole. 

THE 'NATURAL BREAK' CLAUSE 

The Television Act lays down that advertisements shall not be inserted 
'otherwise than at the beginning or end of a programme or in natural 
breaks therein' (Schedule 2 Sec. 3). Parliament's intentions were clear. 
Advertisements would be allowed not only between programmes but also 
in breaks in them provided these breaks were 'natural'. A 'natural' break 
-so MP's were led to understand-was a break which would have happened 
anyhow, irrespective of a programme contractor's urge to fill it with 
commercials. There could be commercials between acts of a play, or at 
half-time in football matches, or between races at race meetings, and so on. 
The chief government spokesman during the debates, Lord Kilmuir, then 
Home Secretary, explained what was intended: 

'Suppose there is a two-act play and there really is a natural break 
between the acts. I cannot myself see any harm in an advertisement 
coming in there, especially if the first act had lasted for an hour and 
a half.' 

It was on the strength of assurances like these, which now seem merely 
grotesque, that a suspicious Parliament was induced to pass provisions in 
the Act which led to vast fortunes being made by the programme contractors. 

Today, of course, the natural break clause is virtually a dead letter. To 
the great irritation of viewers, and the great profit of programme companies, 
breaks are made in programmes of every type-current affairs, science 
documentaries, children's programmes, half-hour plays and feature films. 
A film classic like 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre', specially constructed to 
create a steady accumulation of tension from start to finish, is ruthlessly 
broken up into four parts to make room for commercials. Distinguished 
speakers are interrupted in mid-sentence. The Leader of Her Majesty's 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

Opposition is faded out prematurely. Always, the programme gives way to 
the commercial; never the commercial to the programme. The situation was 
described with admirable clarity by the programme contractor who declared: 

'As far as I am concerned any break which brings me in £10,000 is a 

natural break.' 

What is ITA's defence? They argue that the breaks improve the pro-
grammes-even the serious programmes. In a formal interview with Sir 
Robert Fraser in January 1959, I asked what positive gain there could be 
in interrupting Dr. Bronowski's science programmes. The Director-General 
replied -in the words of the agreed record of the meeting -that 

'a pause was an advantage in exposition just as chapters were an advantage 
in a book.' 

It is sad that so many scientific books have been written without the 
advice of the Director-General of ITA. Much might have been gained if 
the authors of 'The Origin of Species' and 'The General Theory of Relativity' 
had interlarded each chapter, for greater clarity, with advertisements 
for toothpaste and detergents. 

Perhaps wisely, the Postmaster-General has not defended the unnatural 
break along these lines. He has argued that viewers do not object to the 
breaks. On one occasion he even gave his blessing to the theory that 
viewers actually liked the breaks.1 Shortly afterwards however, when a 
Gallup poll was published in the News Chronicle showing that only five 
per cent of lTV viewers liked the breaks, and 81 per cent were annoyed by 
them, the Postmaster-General abandoned this line of defence. 

In February 1959, I introduced a Bill into the House of Commons to prohibit 
all interruptions of programmes, and to prevent programme companies 
recouping themselves by artificially shortening the programmes. According 
to a Gallup poll, only nine per cent of lTV viewers were opposed to the 
Bill and 69 per cent -perhaps as many as eighteen million viewers -supported 
it. Though warmly backed by the Opposition, the Bill has been 
obstructed by Tory backbenchers, has not been debated, and has no chance 
of reaching the statute book. 

THE 'SIX MINUTES AVERAGE ' 

Even more profitable than stretching the 'natural break' clause is the 
practice of broadcasting excessive amounts of advertising. The Act lays 
down that 

'The amount of time given to advertising shall not be so great as to 
detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, 
instruction and information.' 

Supporting Mr. Geoffrey Gorer. Han ard ol. 1240 11th March 19 9. 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

Introducing the Bill into the House of Commons on second reading, Lord 
Kilmuir explained what the Government had in mind. After stating that 
the decision would rest with the Authority, he said: 

'I ought not to prophesy, but the sort of thing I envisage -I may be 
wrong-is five or six minutes to an hour.' 

Parliament undoubtedly thought -and it is the most reasonable interpretation 
-that what was meant was five or six minutes 'to any hour'. But 
the phrase could doubtless be interpreted as meaning that viewers would 
see six minutes in the hour on the average -e.g. one million viewers 
would see seven minutes one hour and five the next. 

But neither of these interpretations satisfies the programme contractors. 
They can make their biggest profits if they are allowed to crowd their 
advertising into the hours when the largest numbers of viewers are watching, 
from 7.0 to 10.0. At this time advertising can fetch £1,000 per minute 
or more instead of £100 per minute or less. 

The programme contractors' wishes are thus met by ITA's disingenuous 
formula, 'six minutes spread over the whole day'. This simply means, in 
effect, that programme contractors may broadcast much more than six 
minutes during the evenings, when people are watching, provided they 
broadcast much less during the mornings and afternoons, when they are not. 

A glance at the records shows that this is precisely what is happening. 
Though the amount of advertising averaged over the day is six minutes 
an hour or less, viewers in fact see seven, eight and nine minutes of advertising 
at the times they actually switch on. Between 7.0 and 10.0 in the 
evening, the average is 7t minutes. If advertising magazines are counted in 
(government spoke~men excluded them from the 'five to six minutes' 
formula on the erroneous assumption that they would have some intrinsic 
documentary value), then the average amount of advertising between 5.0 and 

11.0 is 8t minutes. On three or four evenings a week there will be hours in 
which more than twenty minutes of advertising is broadcast. 
All this means vast additions to the already excessive prot ts of the pro-
gramme companies. A simple calculation shows that by systematically exceeding 
an average of six minutes an hour at normal viewing times, one 
programme contractor alone -Associated-Rediffusion -is making a fraction 
under £2 million a year. If the whole period between 5.0 and 11.0 is 
taken, excluding advertising magazines, the figure is approximately £1imillion. 
Including advertising magazines, the figure is about £4 million 
a year. 

The Authority's defence of this state of affairs is fantastic. It argues that 
the maximum of six minutes is exceeded because of the nature of the pro-
gramme being broadcast. In the record of our meeting already quoted, 
Sir Robert Fraser stated : 

'At the outset it seemed to the Authority that ten per cent of total 

time would be about right for advertisements, and the question then 

arose whether it should be spread evenly over the day or related to the 


COMMERCIAL TEL VISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

capacity of various types of programme to bear advertising. The Authority 
had decided on a policy of flexibility operated by reference to defined 
categories of programmes. It was very rare for advertising to exceed 
eight minutes in a clock hour. He asked Mr. Mayhew whether it did 
not seem sensible to let advertising time out over a day in this way. 
Mr. Mayhew asked whether Sir Robert was implying that the concentration 
of advertisements at the more profitable peak hours was simply a 
coincidence. Sir Robert Fraser agreed that, of course, the factors which 
determined so-called peak hours were often also factors which determined 
the capacity of particular programmes to bear advertising.' 

But this explanation does not make sense. If it were the nature of 
the programme, and not the time at which it is shown, that decided the 
amount of advertising, then the same type of programme would carry the 
same amount of advertising at whatever time it was shown. A glance 
at the records shows that this is simply not so. Light programmes carry 
a great deal of advertising at peak hours and little or none outside them. 
Serious programmes carry just as much advertising in peak hours (on the 
rare occasions they appear then) as light programmes. 

The real reason why more than six minutes advertising is broadcast at 
peak hours is simply that the programme companies make more money that 
way, and the Authority is too weak to stop them. 

The Authority now seems to have abandoned its defence of current 
practice, and there is some evidence that it may demand stricter observance 
of the Act in the future. But at the moment of writing, viewers are still 
seeing seven, eight or nine minutes of advertising an hour at the time when 
they habitually switch on; and the programme companies are continuing to 
make excess profits at the expense of viewers and in clear violation of the 
Act and of the intentions of Parliament. 

Some viewers, it is true, actually like the commercials; but they are a 
small minority -between one in twenty and one in four, depending on 
when the commercial is screened. A Gallup poll published in the N ews 
Chronicle on lOth March 1959 gave the following results: 

'Do breaks for advertisements in between one programme and another 
annoy you at all, or do you like them? 

Annoy 46 % ('a lot' 24 %, 'a little' 20 %) 
Like them 27 % 
Indifferent 27 % 


How about the breaks for advertisements in the middle of programmes? 

Annoy 81 % ('a lot' 61 %, 'a little' 20 %) 
Like them 5% 
Indifferent 14 % 


During the interview with the IT A chiefs already referred to, the follow-
exchanges took place : 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

'Mr. Mayhew said he assumed it would be agreed that the public would 
prefer six minutes an hour rather than eight minutes an hour. Sir Ivone 
Kirkpatrick replied that this assumption was not necessarily proved; and 
was disproved if one took the criterion of whether the independent television 
programmes had lost viewers because of the alleged increase in 
the volume of advertising.' 

Early in 1959 I introduced a Private Member's Bill limiting advertising 
to six minutes 'in any hour' into the Commons without opposition; but 
obstruction from Tory backbenchers successfully destroyed the chances of 
this Bill, just as it destroyed the chances of the 'natural break' Bill. In 
both cases, the Bills would simply have enforced the intention of existing 
legislation, and were supported by an overwhelming majority of public 
optmon. 

UNLIKELY CLAIMS 

I once submitted an idea to BBC Television for a 3-minute feature in 
Panorama on the following lines: a commentator would appear in a studio 
containing fifty newly washed pillowcases. He would then simply read out 
the names of the Chairmen of the detergent companies and their advertising 
agencies who had declined his invitation to come to the studio to pick out 
which pillowcases had been washed by their detergent. (A window would 
would be provided in the studio so that the representatives of Daz could 
subject the pillowcases to the famous 'Daz window test'.) 

Disappointingly, the BBC turned down the idea. It would have illuminated 
a widespread and just criticism of much television advertising-that 
millions of pounds and vast resources of scarce talent are squandered 
in the utterly worthless task of switching viewers' tastes from one branded 
product to another. The techniques used are sometimes brilliant, but often 
dishonest. Film shots are faked (a seemingly delicious 'breakfast food' may 
well be made of rubber) and slogans are usually poised somewhere between 
the half-truth on the one hand and the downright lie on the other. 

False claims in television advertising are merely one aspect of the general 
problem of false advertising claims, and need not be pursued in detail here. 
As in the case of the campaign on 'natural breaks' and the 'six minute 
average', Parliamentary pressure bas secured minor improvements in lTV's 
standards. 

On 11th March 1959, for example, the Postmaster-General was questioned 
about certain toothpaste advertisements which were drawn to the attention 
of the ITA Advertising Advisory Committee on 20th October 1958. Mr. 
Marples stated that one advertiser, on being asked to substantiate his claims 
or to revise his script, withdrew his advertisement as from 1st January 
1959. Another, asked to amend his script on 27th January agreed to do so 
but continued broadcasting it in its original form until the middle of March. 
(The Postmaster-General subsequently agreed with criticisms in Parliament 
that ITA should have had these advertisements withdrawn sooner.) 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

Under Parliamentary pressure the Postmaster-General also asked ITA 
for a special report on claims made for three products on lTV. One was 
for Hovis bread (whose advertising agents are John Haddon & Co. Ltd. 
and A. W. Newton Ltd.) claiming that 'it is exactly eight times more good 
for the viewer than any other bread'. Another was B.P. Energol motor oil 
(whose advertising agents are S. H. Benson Ltd.) that 'it reduces engine 
wear by exactly 80 per cent'. The third was for Maltesers (whose advertising 
agents are Masius & Ferguson Ltd.) claiming that they are 'seven times 
less fattening than ordinary chocolate'. 

The ITA Advertising Advisory Committee, which has the task of advising 
about the principles and practice of television advertising, has failed to 
prevent abuses. It meets very seldom (only twice in 1958), and is composed 
to a considerable extent of advertising people themselves. 


6. Children's Programmes 
'QNE thing I wiU say for lTV', declared a harassed parent, 'the more 

unsuitable the programme, the quieter it keeps the children.' This was 
a just comment on the first two years of children's broadcasting on lTV. 
It is the bad children's programme which makes the most money; and the 
programme companies began by screening an endless series of American 
thrillers and Westerns during Children's Hour, winning away a staggering 
proportion of the BBC's viewership, and doing nothing whatever to develop 
children's creative interests. 

After two years of financially shrewd, but otherwise execrable, children's 
broadcasts, ITA's own Children's Advisory Committee at last became disturbed, 
and in its annual report for 1958 ventured the mild criticism that 
there was 'rather too high a proportion of drama in which the solutions 
were found only by physical conflict'. 

This comment, which followed widespread public criticism, helped to 
produce an improvement in lTV's standards. Associated Television 
appointed a new Director of Children's Programmes and announced that 
in future a number of programmes would be broadcast with the aim of 
stimulating children's creative activities. 

Meantime, however, clear proof had been given that undiluted commercialism 
in television produces a lack of responsibility towards children 
and a debasement of children's programmes. 

It is unfortunate that the admirable survey of the impact of television 

on children produced by Dr. 1Himmelweit for the Nuffield Trust could not 

deal with commercial television. Until a full survey has been made, any 

opinion on the impact of lTV on our children's minds must be tentative 

and provisional. 

But it seems certain that lTV does have an impact on children's minds 

and actions. (If nothing el e proves this, it is proved by the sales figures of 

sweets manufacturers!) Until someone proves the contrary, it is quite 

reasonable to suppose that a child's mind is influenced for the worse by a 

diet of American films of violence. 

And apart from the question of programme standards, is it ethical to 

advertise on television for children? Where children are concerned, the 

ethical difference between ordinary advertising and subliminal advertising is 

largely academic. Both make money by exploiting a child's natural suggest


ibility. Mr. Vance Packard, in his interesting and disturbing book The 

Hidden Persuaders, quotes an advertisement which appeared in an American 

trade journal on the value of TV commercials for children. It read : 

'Where else on earth is brand consciousness fixed so firmly as in the 
minds of four-year-old tots? What is it worth to a manufacturer who 
can close in on this juvenile audience and continue to sell it under controlled 
conditions year after year right up to its attainment of adulthood 
and fully fledged buyer status? It can be done. Interested?' 

Exploiting a child's suggestibility on television in order to sell commercial 

products must be about the lowest form of activity open to a British 

citizen short of actual crime. 


7. Monopoly Power 
S
S
UPPORTERS of commercial television sometimes describe it as being 
'democratic'; but the 'big four' programme companies -Associated 
Rediffusion, Associated Television, Granada and ABC-are now so 
powerful as to be a threat to our democracy. They have an unhealthy 
amount of influence vis-a-vis the Authority, the smaller programme companies, 
Parliament, the press, the literary and entertainment worlds, and the 
general public. 

These companies are a monopoly. Lord Boothby has expressed this well: 

'(lTV) .. . is at the moment a monopoly. Four companies in one of the 

tightest rings ever devised run the show from the contracting and pro-

gramme point of view. London is carved up between Associated Redif


fusion and ATV, the Midlands between ATV and ABC, and the North 

between Granada and ABC. The hold of the 'big four' if I may so call 

them, over the so-called independent provincial stations is complete, in 

the sense that the latter are dependent upon them for at least 80 per cent 

of the programmes. '1 

The Television Act declares: 'It shall be the duty of the Authority to 
do what they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply 
programmes between a number of programme contractors independent 
of each other as to finance and as to control' (Clause 5 Sec. 2). This provision 
of the Act is a dead letter. So far from competing in the supply 
of programmes, the programme companies supply virtually all programmes 
in normal viewing hours -and many outside -by joint decision in their 
'networking committee'. The procedures and practices of this committee 
are secret; but it is here that the companies decide which of each other's 
programmes they will broadcast in their own schedules -i.e. which they 
will 'network'. Networking is vastly profitable, and it has become the established 
practice for the companies to show the same programmes at normal 
viewing hours. 

Though profitable to the companies, the activities of the networking 
committee are unprofitable to the viewer. The chosen programmes are not 
selected by the processes of competition, nor deliberately picked out by a 
disinterested body, anxious to accept the best and reject the worst: · they 
are selected by a process of log-rolling between the companies. A pro-
gramme will be screened not because it is necessarily thought the best, but 
because the companies accept it as a quid pro quo for getting their own 
programmes networked. There is thus often a direct conflict of interest 
between the companies and the viewers -and, as usual in lTV, the voice 
of the viewer goes unheard. If anyone supposes lTV to be 'democratic' 
it is probable that the minutes of the networking committee, if published, 
would do much to disillusion him. 

House of Lord , Vol. 216, col. 553, 3rd June, 1959. 


COMMER IAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

Quite apart from the monopoly position of the 'big four', these companies 
wield immense influence as a result of the enormous patronage they 
dispense. They can offer (or deny) fame and fortune on an unprecedented 
scale to M.P.s, actors, sport men, playwrights, broadcasters, musicians, 
journalists and variety artists. The prize is not merely a few appearances 
on the screen: lTV's smile can bring success in other fields -in newspapers, 
theatres and cinemas under lTV's control and influence. 

The financial links between lTV and other media are so many and varied 
that no comprehensive picture can be given. About one-quarter of the 
issued share capital of the companies is held by newspapers. The Daily 
Mirror and Sunday Pictorial own between them 20 per cent of the equity 
of ATV. Mr. Roy Thomson, controller of a chain of Scottish newspapers, 
and now also of the Kemsley Press, controls Scottish Television Ltd. 
The Daily Mail group has a one-third holding in Southern Television. 
Amalgamated Press Ltd. has another one-third holding in the same company. 
News of the World Ltd. holds 20± per cent, and the Liverpool Daily 
Post 14t per cent, of the shares of Television Wales and the West. The 
News Chronicle (Daily News Ltd.) holds 21 per cent of the shares of Tyne-
Tees Television Ltd. Norfolk News Ltd. and the Guardian hold a sub


tantial proportion of the shares of Anglia Television. 
It is difficult to discover any reason, in the public interest, why commercial 
television should be linked up with sections of the press in this way. 
Both media are quite powerful enough by themselves for the health of 
democracy; united in a single empire the extent of their power becomes 
thoroughly objectionable. National and local newspapers should stand 
apart from national and local television services, with both sides criticising 
each other's output vigilantly and objectively. In many cases, however, 
they are simply in each other's pockets. The most devout and reverent 
treatment is accorded to lTV by the Daily Mirror, with its substantial 
financial interest in ATV; and the Mirror booklet 'Spotlight on Television' 
is absurdly biassed. A solemn concluding chapter of this booklet asks who 
should get the third television channel. After judiciously ruling out, in 
turn, the BBC, a new public service corporation, and the ITA operating its 
own service, the booklet concludes 'that leaves the programme companies 
... Britain's third television programme should go to commercial television'. 
That is to say, a large part of it should go to the Daily Mirror itself. 

In the same pamphlet, the Daily Mirror complains, with breath-taking 
hypocrisy, but with considerable truth, that newspapers which have no 
financial interest in lTV are prejudiced against it: 

'Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers, along with others, were interested in 
the prospects of commercial television in the early days, but did not 
apply for a contract when it came to the point. The Express papers 
have since been heavily committed to an uncompromising and rancorous 
policy of proving, often at great cost to their own reserves of ingenuity, 
that commercial television does not work. If the Express group did gointo television there would at any rate be an interesting exhibition of 
editorial back pedalling.' 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

The Daily Mirror's financial interest in lTV presents a special problem 
to the Labour Party. There is a definite danger that if the Party is too 
critical of lTV, the Mirror will turn against it. But this should encourage 
the Party to reform, rather than discourage the Party from reforming, lTV 
along the lines suggested in this pamphlet: one of the reforms suggested is 
to break all financial links between the programme companies and the 
newspapers. 

The programme companies' excessive power is buttressed by their excessive 
wealth. In a survey of the fortunes made by leading men in the 
industry, the City Editor of the Sunday Express recently stated: 

In 1955 Mr. Lew Grade put £1,250 into commercial television. Todaythat £1,250 is worth about £275,000 . . . . Mr. Littler put £900 into 
commercial TV. And today it is worth £200,000 .... Mr. Val Parnell 
invested £1,000 when commercial TV prepared to come on the air. Its 
value today? About £220,000.' 

Much-possibly the greater part-of the profits of the programme 
companies comes from evading the intention of the Television Act described 
in previous Sections of this pamphlet. The profits of the smaller companies 
are also very substantial, and are also due in large part to similar evasions. 
In the case of these companies, moreover, no plea can be made that they 
took risks in the early years. Once they had been lucky enough to be 
granted contracts by ITA, huge profits were certain. 

The programme companies' wealth enables them to spend vast sums on 
straightforward public relations. Huge advertisements appear in the national 
newspapers : those in the serious newspapers featuring the serious lTV 
programmes, and those in the popular newspapers featuring the popular 
programmes. M.P.s and others are showered with beautifully produced 
verbatim transcripts of documentary programmes (often well below BBC 
standards) carrying the suggestion that these are characteristic of lTV's 
output in normal viewing hours. Amid great publicity, a small fraction 
of the programme companies' excess profits is paid as conscience money 
in grants to universities, art galleries and drama schools. 

In spite of this, and in spite of the large audiences attracted by their 
programmes, public respect for the programme companies and the Authority 
remains -deservedly -at a low level. 


8. What Is To Be Done? 
W
W
HAT should a Labour Government then do about lTV? Should it 
leave it as it is until the commission of enquiry reports and the 
Television Act runs out in 1964? Or should it go ahead and make interim 
reforms? 

The main defects to be remedied are-excessive advertising; abuse of 
the 'natural break' clause; failure to ensure programme balance and a 
sufficient proportion of British programmes in normal viewing hours; failure 
to provide a genuine choice of programme; and the excessive power of 
the programme companies in general and of the networking committee in 
particular. 

Reform could be approached in two ways. The first possibility would 
be to make a series of specific amendments to the Television Act to remedy 
each of these defects in turn. For example: 

1. 
Excessive advertising could quite simply be prevented by laying down 
a maximum of 5 or 6 minutes of advertising in any hour (or perhaps 
10 or 12 minutes spread over two hours). 
2. 
Evasion of the 'natural break' clause could be stopped by amending 
the Second Schedule of the Act so as to prevent all advertising except 
at the beginning and end of programmes. To forestall the possibility 
that programme contractors would then shorten the programmes, the 
Authority would be given power to lay down, in agreement with the 
Postmaster-General, the number of advertisement-free periods to be 
.broadcast each week. 
3. 
A ceiling-say 15 per cent -could be laid down for the proportion 
of American material broadcast at normal viewing hours. 
4, 
The excessive power of the programme companies could be reduced 
by prohibiting the holding of shares in lTV by newspapers. 

5. 
The Authority could be given a powerful say in the proceedings of 
the networking committee. 
These reforms would be easy to carry out and would be widely popular. 
But another approach to the problem is possible. All of the defects we 
have noted in lTV spring from the same basic cause-the fundamental 
weakness of the Authority vis-a-vis the programme companies. It might 
therefore be possible simply to strengthen the Authority vis-a-vis the pro-
gramme companies and then leave the required reforms to be carried out 
by administrative decision by the Authority. 

A beginning could be made by strengthening the personnel of the Authority. 
Then the Act could be amended so as to give the Authority, instead 
of the programme companies, the right to sell advertising time and to plan 
the network programmes. The Authority would then receive all the adver



20 COMMERCIAL TELEVISiON -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

tising revenue itself and would simply contract for the network programmes 
from the companies. 

In this way the choice of programmes in normal viewing hours would 
no longer be decided solely by advertising considerations and log-rolling 
between the companies. The Authority would be free to schedule popular 
minority programmes in normal viewing hours; to enter into arrangements 
with the BBC to prevent the worst programme clashes; to end the interruption 
of programmes by advertisements; to limit the amount of advertising; 
and to ensure a proper proportion of British programmes in normal viewing 
hours. Many of the objectionable features of the programme companies' 
excessive power would be automatically removed. 

Another advantage would be the ending of the present expensive and 
bureaucratic system of selling advertising time, whereby each programme 
company negotiates separately with each advertising agency, even though 
the commercial in question will probably appear simultaneously and · in 
identical form on all twelve services. 

Programme companies could remain responsible, as at present, for planning 
and producing regional broadcasts, covering about 15 per cent of total 
output; and they could be paid by the Authority the advertising revenue 
attributable to these regional programmes. The main source of income 
of the programme companies would, however, be their sales of programmes 
to the Authority and to overseas buyers; and they would also be free to 

ell programmes to the BBC and to any new television service that might 
be set up in the future. They could, and doubtless would, still make 
immense profits. 


9. A Third Service 
M
M
ANY people feel that there is not enough good programme material 
today to sustain two television services, let alone three. 

But this will not always be so. Over the last few years, the number of 
skilled TV playwrights, commentators, producers and performers has grown 
enormously. The range of programmes has increased steadily, and so has 
the size of TV audiences. 

These trends will surely continue, and the demand for third -and fourth 
and fifth -programmes will grow. 

If the technical problems allowed it, there would be every reason for 
beginning to plan at least one new television service now, without waiting 
for the report of a long-drawn-out commission of enquiry. But the technical 
difficulties, arising mainly from an acute shortage of wavelengths, are very 
serious. At the time of writing, the Postmaster-General's Television Advisory 
Committee's report has still to be published, and it would be profitless to 
discuss these difficulties in detail meanwhile. The main problems are these: 

1. Line standards. Do we want to change our present 405-line standard? 
A higher standard-e.g. 625-line, as used in most European countries would 
produce better pictures and have other advantages. But since broadcasts 
on 405-lines would ha:ve to continue until existing sets became obsolete, 
two precious new channels would probably be required simply for the 
purpose of repeating existing BBC and lTV programmes. 
2. Colour. This is technically practicable and extremely enjoyable. But 
it is still expensive and unreliable. And if we are to have colour, then for 
practical purposes we should have a higher line definition as well. 
3. Ultra-high frequencies. To sustain more than three (possibly more 
than two) TV services, use must be made of wavelengths known as Band 
4 and 5. These have not yet been developed for broadcasting in Europe, 
and existing sets could not receive programmes in these bands without 
being adapted, at a cost of perhaps £10 to £15 per set. 
4. Subscription television. This is a very promising and revolutionary 
idea. There are three main variants of 'Pay-as-you-view'. Common to all 
of them is the principle that the subscribing viewers pay only for the 
items they want to see, and non-subscdbing viewers cannot see these items. 
The great attraction of the idea is that very large sums could theoretically 
be rai-sed for broadcasting particular types of programmes not broadcast on 
other channels -e.g. new feature films, outstanding sporting events, a 
complete opera with an international cast, or indeed any programmes with 
a strong minority appeal -from greyhound racing to specialist educational 
courses -which for one reason or another are not broadcast on other 
channels. Obviously, a P A YV system would be extremely careful not to 
show programmes similar to those being broadcast on other channels. The 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

system would have a built-in guarantee against programme clashes. At the 
same time, if only one million viewers could be tempted to part with say-
one shilling to see a particular programme, very large sums would 
be made available to the broadcasting authority. 

Further experiment is still needed to test the practicability of the three 
variants of PAYV, and to choose between them. But if the tests are successful, 
there may be an extremely bright future for this project. 

It is clear, however, that unsolved technical questions of this kind leave 
the future of broadcasting rather obscure. Until the Television Advisory 
Committee's report has been studied and carefully digested, no detailed conclusions 
can be reached as to whether or when new television services 
should be started. 

But something can be said about the principles on which the new services 
should be based if and when they are begun. 

1. The conclusion which emerges most strongly from this survey is that 
the motive of maximising advertising revenue, even when somewhat restrained 
by law and a public service authority, works against viewers' interests 
at many points, and should not be extended. This is also the view of the 
public, according to the poll published by the Daily Express on 3rd September 
1958, which is believed to be confirmed by private surveys made by 
the television industry. 
Question: 
'If the third service is introduced would you prefer to see it 
allocated to the BBC, to lTV, or to some other organisation? ' 

BBC 43% 
lTV 21% 
Other 
Don't 
organisationknow 
24 % 
12% 
There is no possible argument political, 
letting 'Admass' loose on new TV .channels. 
technical or ethical-for 

2. A strong ·section of public opinion feels that the third channel should 
be given to the BBC. This would have the advantage that the two BBC 
programmes could be planned on a co-ordinated basis, so that viewers got 
a genuine choice of programme at all times. This would be an immense gain. 
But one of the defects of BBC television today is that it is too centralised 
and cumbersome. This is partly due to its links with sound broadcasting, 
which could be broken, but partly also to the vast size of the job it already 
has to do. Its existing defects would be magnified if it were to undertake 
a second TV programme. 
3. There is a strong case for decentralising control of British television 
as much as possible, on grounds of administration and good democra~ic 
practice; and a commonsense solution for the third service would be to 
give it to a new public service corporation. 
It is sometimes argued that it would ·be wasteful to build up an entirely 
new organisation, with a fresh governing board, planning staff, transmitting 
ervice , and so on. But thi underrate the importance of such 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

an organisation in terms of money, influence and the number of v1ewers 
likely to be served; and it overrates the difficulties of starting and maintaining 
the service. The new corporation would not need to produce more 
than a small proportion of programmes itself since, after the proposed 
reform of lTV, existing programme companies (and others to be formed) 
would be able and willing to sell programmes to it themselves 

Two main problems are raised by the idea of a new corporation : 
First, how are viewers to be assured of a genuine choice of programme? 
If three independent services compete for audiences, their schedules will 
tend to match each other, programme for programme, at any given time. 
This will apply to a limited extent even if two of the competitors are 
public service organisations. 
If, on the other hand, the public service systems concentrate on minority 
programmes, their schedules may still clash badly with each other; and they 
may also relieve the commercial system (to its immense profit, and to the 
disadvantage of viewers) from the obligation to screen popular minority 
programmes at all. 

The best solution seems to be to reform ITV along the lines suggested, 

o that the Authority is able to schedule popular minority programmes and 
to discuss programme co-ordination with the other two systems; and then 
to set up a special programme timing committee for the purpose of avoiding 
major programme clashes. The committee might consist of independent 
persons appointed by the Postmaster-General assisted by representatives including 
regional representatives -of the BBC, ITA, and the new corporation. 
If the BBC and ITA can co-operate to the extent of ensuring that 
their simultaneous broadcasts of the same tennis match are simultaneously 
interrupted by the same live interview, they can surely co-operate in similar 
fashion to ensure that this kind of thing never happens again. 
The second major problem presented by a second public service corporation 
is the problem of finance. Where is the money to come from? 
If further tests of P A YV systems are successful, there is avery strong 
case for allowing the corporation to finance itself in this manner. 

If, however, these tests fail two further possibilities remain. The corporation 
could be required to finance itself from advertisements. It would then 
find itself in much the same position as the reformed ITA -a non-profitmaking 
organisation receiving large sums of advertising revenue and buying 
most or all of its programmes from outside bodies. This would break ITA's 
advertising monopoly. 

The difficulty, however, i that advertisements are not liked by most 
viewers, who also realise increa ingly that they have to pay for the advertisements 
and the programmes when they go shopping; and they are, from 
the national point of view, fantastically expensive, wasteful and inflationary. 
The production of the commercials themselves draws off and sterilises large 
numbers of scarce TV technicians and 'ideas men' who might otherwise 
be improving TV programmes. 


COMMERCIAL TELEVISION -WHAT IS TO BE DONE? 

It is therefore worth considering whether, in return for allowing its 
fabulously profitable advertising monopoly to continue, lTV might not be 
taxed a substantial sum in order to finance the third corporation in whole 
or in part. Similarly, if the new corporation adopts PAYV, and thus also 
perpetuates ITA's advertising monopoly, the same tax should still be levied, 
and used to reduce or abolish the BBC's £4 broadcasting licence. 

The tax could be levied either by increasing the rents charged to pro-
gramme contractors by lTV for the use of transmitters (these rents are 
absurdly low and were recently strongly criticised by the Select Committee 
on Expenditure) or -perhaps preferably -could be raised in the normal 
fashion in the Budget. 

* 


If the main arguments in this pamphlet are accepted the two major tasks 
for a new Labour Government will be: 

/ 

1. 
Reform of lTV, in order to subordinate the interests of the programme 
companies to the interests of viewers through a strengthened Independent 
Television Authority; and in particular to put an end to monopoly 
practices and profiteering by the companies. 
2. 
A rapid expansion of television along public service lines, starting with 
a new corporation to take over the 'third channel'. 

Ancient and Modern 


Bernard Shaw attended his first FABIAN 
meeting in May 1884. From then until his 
death he was a regular FABIAN lecturer and 
pamphleteer (managing a few plays as well). 

The FABIAN SOCIETY, now over 75 years old, 
has won and retained the support of m1ny 
distinguished people in and around the 
theatre -writers, actors, producers and 
critics. Ancient by the modest standards of 
socialist societies, it is youthful and contemporary 
in its appeal. 

If you enjoyed this pamphlet, the Secretary, 
at 11 Dartmouth Street, London, S.W.l, 
would be glad to tell you more. 

Printed in Dorking, Surrey 
by David Neil & Company, 34/36 South Street 



Recent Fabian Publications 


Research Pamphlets 


200 POLICY FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
Kenneth Robinson, M.P. 


201 THE 
CO~ON MARKET AND ITS FORERUNNERS 
Shirley Williams 

202 BRITAIN AND THE FREE TRADE AREA 
Shirley Williams 

203 PRISON REFORM Now 
Howard Jones 


204 TOWN AND COUNTRY 

R. M. Stuttard 
205 TRAINING FOR SKILL 
Gertrude Williams 
206 WHAT SHALL WE DO ABOUT THE ROADS? 

W. T. Rodger 
207 PAYING FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
H. R. Parker 
208 THE 
FuruRE OF THE FAMILY DocTOR 
Bruce Cardew 

209 THE UNIVERSITIES: A ROYAL COMMISSION? 
Graeme Moodie 

210 
A UNITED NATIONS POLICE FORCE? 
David Ennals 


Tracts 

310 CAPITALISM IN THE MODERN WORLD 

311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 

G. D. H. Cole 
A NEUTRAL BELT IN EUROPE? 
Denis Healey, M.P. 

LAND 
NATIO~ALISATION-FOR AND AGAINSl 
John Mackie, Harry Wa~ston 

DWELL TOGETHER IN UNITY 
John Hatch 

CHINA : AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE 
Joan Robinson and Sol Adler 

COLOUR AND COMMONSENSE 
Kenneth Little 

GoMULKA's PoLAND 
Lucjan Blit 

THE F UTURE OF THE THEATRE 
Richard Findlater 

116 

3I3I


216 
2121216 
21


2;6 
5I


21


216 

116 
116 

. 3 I


116 
216 
21216