TELEVISION AND RADIO

by JAMES GRAHAM THE television election is getting up steam and the party officials have got out their stopwatches to see that one party does not steal a few seconds over the other.
Lt's a boring prospect for the viewer. Every time a minister speaks. even on a news bulletin, his opposite number of the Opposition front bench sneaks as well.
This, I presume. will go on until the election. But however tedious it may be for we who arc watching. it is not difficult to sec why the party officials are so nervous.
It is not so much the fear that an opponent will explain a policy particularly persuasively, or even sneak in an insult. It is the impression he could create while doing it that matters.
Some of the most experienced television producers believe that viewers seldom if ever remember a single word that is spoken on the air. They retain only an itnivession of what is said. And of course an impression of the man who is saying it.
So if, as is supposed, many. many voters don't understand what seems at Westminster to be vital election issues. these impressions become more important.
Is Sir Alec or Mr. Wilson more impressive as a man of honesty and competence in these television terms?
Somepeople think that honesty somehow shines through the television camera and that it is difficult to escape with being bogus on the air. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It is far easier to get away with a superficial view on television and really deep thought is often mistaken at the viewing end for hesitance or shallowness. It may be a poor way of choosing a government. But it is a reality as the nervous eyes in Smith Square and Transport House sec it.
They have every right 19 be nervous, It, does seem depressingly easy to win a reputation on television with the flimsiest qualifications.
Pundits arc made overnight.
It was rather surprising. for instance, to sec Mr. Adam faith last week being interviewed on the report of V.D. and sub-adult promiscuity. I have no idea what Mr. Faith knows about it, But it is plain why he was asked for his opinion.
It was because of his much publicised—and from the Church's point of view—disastrous television discussion with the Archbishop of York. On the strength of that he has been made the teenage pundit. Every time a teenager's problem comes into the news he is called on to pontificate about it.
Just as Mr. Malcolm Muggcridge is the dissenters' pundit and Lord Boothby the jack of all . trades pundit. They may be particularly wellinformed on their subjects. 1 don't know. But they don't need to be well-informed at all.
All that is required is that they should at sonic time have been associated in the newspapers with the topic at issue. Such are the stresses of daily television production that men are ofterechosen because they are available rather than because of their excellence.
After seeing Mr. Faith last week. I am not surprised that the political parties are looking forward to the election with something short of enthusiasm.
Thtre was not a lot to be enthusiastic about in the week's religious programmes. Meeting Point on sex, quite excelled itself. A fatherlylooking clergyman, asked if he disapproved of fornication, said—and I could hardly believe my ears at the lime and had to listen to the repeat to make sure—"It depends what you mean by fornication". Asked about sin he said: "It depends what you mean by sin".
It was straight out of Beyond the Fringe. I half-expected to be told at the end that it was Peter Sellers in disguise pulling our legs. Unfortunately it wasn't. This sort of buffoonery can be very amusing, but is it good for religious television?
However, it was refreshingly different of the BBC to chair their discussion on sex with a pretty girl, Miss Joan Bakewell. A deft touch in an otherwiseun-deft programme. Sunday Break from Liverpool was. well lust "Sunday Break". Same as last week. Quite probably the same as next week.