NEW HUMANIST The Quarterly Journal of the Rationalist Press Association Volum e 103 No 4 Decem ber, 1988
CONTENTS
Rationally speaking
Nicolas Walter
The soul
Ronald Fletcher
In defence of a life stance
Harry Stopes-Roe
The politics of mammon
Michael Foot
IHEU at Buffalo
Paul Kurtz and Nettie Klein
The education watershed, 1988
Lord Houghton of Sowerby
Medical aid for Poland
Sarah Lawson
4
5
8
10
13
15
16
Shaw; philanderer, politician, playwright 17 T. F. Evans
Book reviews by Wendy M. Grossman, G. A. Wells, Mansel Davies, Daniel O ’Hara
20
Letters
Editor: Jim Herrick Published by the Rationalist Press Association Ltd Views expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of the RPA
Editorial and Publishing Offices: 88 ISLINGTON HIGH STREET, LONDON N1 8EW 01-226 7251 ISSN 0306-512X Second class postage paid at New York Office, NY © Rationalist Press Association 1988
23
PIE FROM THE SKY In February 1989 the broadcasting satellite Astra will begin transmitting the new Sky channels owned by Rupert Murdoch. As often happens, technological innovation will force change whether we like it or not. The Home Office has produced a discussion White Paper outlining the Government’s own reaction to the new situation. The White Paper, entitled Broadcasting in the ’90s: Competition, Choice and Quality, opens with a statement of the Government’s approach:
The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy. Because of technological, international and other developments, change is inevitable. It is also desirable: only through change will the individual be able to exercise the much wider choice which will soon become possible.The Government’s aim is to open the doors so that individuals can choose for themselves from a much wider range of programmes and types of broadcasting. In this as in other fields consumers will rightly insist on safeguards which will protect them and their families from shoddy wares and from exploitation. But the Government believes that, with the right enabling framework, a more open and competitive broadcasting market can be attained without detriment to programme standards and quality. Its single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater choice and a greater say. Humanists would certainly favour greater choice, if this is likely to be the result of the deregulation which the Government is planning.
A choice of 15 channels of quiz shows and soap operas is not as genuine as that between four channels offering current affairs, situation comedy, opera and sport. The existing channels by competing with each other for peak hour ratings already narrow the range of choice, and the new channels will be competing vigorously for advertising revenue and subscription fees. There may be good grounds for shaking the “ cosy duopoly” of BBC and ITV, but not if it substitutes the competitive duopoly of Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell.
The press is now sharply partisan—as has been demonstrated by the use of the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times and Sun to promote the Sky channels and to rubbish the Thames Television programme about the Gibraltar killings, Death on the Rock. Freedom of expression and criticism of governments, whatever their complexion, are as important as the freedom to present a wide range of programmes. The tendency of all governments to lean on the media has been demonstrated recently by the taming of the BBC’s current affairs departments. The appointment of Lord Chalfont, well-known for his right-wing views, as deputy-chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Association is not a happy omen. Humanists demand openness of information and criticism in all spheres of the media.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the government’s White Paper in that its desire for increased choice conflicts with a determination to have greater control of “ standards” . There may be grounds for some control of the infamous, but not widespread, “ sex and violence” on our screen. But why should soft porn be forbidden if there is an audience for it and if it is sufficiently well labelled for those who dislike it to avoid it? The White Paper proposes that television should no longer be exempt from the Obscene Publications Act of 1959—an Act which has been notorious for the difficulties of defining what is “ obscene” . The paper proposes that: “ Programmes should not offend against good taste or decency, or be likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder, or be offensive to public feeling.” But one man or woman’s offence is another’s pleasure. A Broadcasting Standards Council has been established as a watch-dog in this area, and the appointment of Lord Rees-Mogg, a known Christian puritan, as its first chairman suggests that the hour has come for Mrs Grundy and Mrs Whitehouse.
As television develops in coming years will there be scope for more religious programmes or programmes setting out the humanist perspective? There is no sign that televangelism will be available to the viewer as in the US. Maybe the expanded system of buying in programmes from independent companies will give humanists the opportunity of approaching independent programme makers with imaginative ideas about programmes which present the humanist perspective. There are many questions and uncertainties in the future of broadcasting. Is it too much to hope that, at least occasionally, television will be intellectually challenging and artistically inspiring? We regret the late publication o f th is issue of the New Humanist as a re su lt of the illn ess of th e editor.
3
