The 大象传媒 had long wanted to broadcast direct from Westminster. But even in the 1960s, a majority of MPs were still reluctant to let in either microphones or cameras. Some feared they鈥檇 be caught napping, others that it would 鈥榗hange the character鈥� of the House, or that programmes such as Monty Python鈥檚 Flying Circus would use recordings to satirize them.
In his diaries, Richard Crossman recorded the Prime Minister Harold Wilson鈥檚 reaction to a 1966 proposal. If the 大象传媒 had every debate recorded, Wilson asked, 鈥榳ould they be able to cut the videotape up and take a little bit of speech and introduce it into a magazine programme?鈥� 鈥楥ertainly鈥�, Crossman replied. 鈥楾hat鈥�, Wilson concluded, 鈥榗ouldn鈥檛 possibly be allowed鈥�.
But a growing number in the Commons were campaigning for change. During a 1972 debate the Conservative backbencher Brian Batsford argued it was wrong that public discussion took place in the 鈥榚ntirely unnatural environment鈥� of TV, 鈥榳here those who are invited to take part are selected, not by you Mr Speaker, but by the broadcasting authorities鈥�.
British voters, he suggested, were 鈥榤ore and more critical鈥� of politicians, and the introduction of cameras might 鈥榖ridge the gulf which has widened so much between Parliament and the people鈥�.
We should no longer accept the second-hand interpretations, the second-hand accounts, by the broadcasting authorities
- David Steel speaking in the Commons, 1972
Inside the 大象传媒, senior executives also spotted the advantage of relaying politics in a less 鈥榤ediated鈥� form. At the start of the 70s, with industrial strife, conflict in Northern Ireland, tensions over immigration, end economic crises at every turn, they envisaged a Britain of deepening divides. Studio debates would be increasingly fractious and harder to manage. 鈥榃hat then is our public attitude?鈥� one of them asked. 鈥業t is to let the different voices speak for themselves.鈥�
How to proceed? After the 1974 Election, there was a more willing generation at Westminster. Unfortunately, 大象传媒 soundings revealed that televising the State Opening of Parliament that year had required a level of artificial lighting that 鈥榮tuck in the gullets of many MPs鈥�. It looked as if the best hope of the broadcasters now lay with the much less obtrusive medium of radio.
On 24 February 1975 a Commons vote, while rejecting cameras, finally approved the presence of microphones. Radio coverage of Parliament wasn鈥檛 made permanent for another three years. But in June 1975 there was a month-long experimental period. The Labour Minister Tony Benn was the first MP to be heard by those listening on Radio 4 medium-wave frequency.
Inside the 大象传媒, political reporters were delighted. Both the live broadcasts of major debates and the regular use of short recorded extracts in programmes such as Today in Parliament and Yesterday in Parliament had, wrote one senor editor, 鈥榠ntroduced into broadcast journalism a whole new element of vast importance鈥�. Another predicted confidently that it would 鈥榣ead to heightened interest in the Parliamentary process鈥�.
Listeners to Radio 4, many of whom were having their regular afternoon plays disrupted, were less convinced. Within the first two days of Radio 4鈥檚 coverage in April 1978, the 大象传媒 received 343 phone calls and letters of complaint; by the end of May they鈥檇 received 2,799 鈥� and only 31 letters of appreciation. Far from reconnecting with parliamentary democracy, the British public鈥檚 first reaction was to be appalled at the rowdy and posturing behaviour in the House, or confused by the arcane procedures. Sometimes they were simply bored.
Behind the scenes, however, there was growing momentum for radio to be joined by TV. This next interview offers a fascinating insight into why, in 1983, it was the Lords rather than the Commons, which first voted to let in the cameras. Margaret Douglas was then the Chief Assistant to the 大象传媒鈥檚 Director-General Alasdair Milne - and in this 1993 recording she explains her role in the negotiations...
-
9.3 MB
In February 1988, , MPs voted to let the Commons follow suit. On 21 November 1989, live television coverage began. Viewers had the strange experience of seeing only a series of static close-ups and the occasional 鈥榳ide shot鈥� of the whole Chamber: to begin with, broadcasters weren鈥檛 allowed to use so-called 鈥榬eaction shots鈥�. The first MP to appear was the Conservative, Ian Gow.
Since 1989, thousands of important debates and committee proceedings have been covered. But for most viewers and listeners the ritual of Prime Minister鈥檚 Questions epitomises Parliamentary broadcasting. Its combative nature has led to complaints about the trivialising of politics - a subject touched on in this next interview. John Cole was the Corporation鈥檚 Political Editor during the governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major 鈥� and in this 1996 recording he recalls in particular Mr Major鈥檚 anxieties.
No to TV
On the 19 October 1972, MPs voted against broadcasting from Parliament - the latest in a long series of failed attempts to allow cameras and microphones into the Commons or Lords. The very next day, the 大象传媒鈥檚 Director-General Charles Curran met his senior news editors to discuss where this left the Corporation. A note of the meeting is held in the 大象传媒鈥檚 written archives:
鈥業t was generally agreed that the vote in the House of Commons on the previous evening had probably shelved the idea of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings for about five years, though it was just conceivable that after a year or two someone might suggest broadcasting them on radio alone.
It was generally agreed that the vote in the House of Commons on the previous evening had probably shelved the idea of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings for about five years, though it was just conceivable that after a year or two someone might suggest broadcasting them on radio alone.
CA to DG [John Crawley, the Chief Assistant to the Director-General] had listened to the debate in the Commons and had gained a new understanding of the House as a club for which members of all parties had a special affection. He had also been reminded of the deep hostility of the House towards the press and broadcasting journalists, especially those of the 大象传媒鈥� This hostility, combined with a desire to preserve the club-like atmosphere of the House of Commons, had been sufficient to defeat the motion. Peter Scott [Peter Hardiman Scott, the 大象传媒鈥檚 Political Editor] agreed.
However, three days later, it was thought some progress might still be possible. The minutes of the 大象传媒鈥檚 Board of Management for 23rd October 1972 record the Chief Assistant to the Director-General reflecting further on the vote:
A lengthy setback was likely as far as televising Parliament was concerned, but the subject might be revived as a 鈥渞adio only鈥� issue within a comparatively short time.
This was prescient. It was to be more than a decade until cameras were allowed into either Chamber. Within three years, however, live radio broadcasts had begun.
Wedgie鈥檚 Triumph
When the first live broadcasting from the House of Commons was heard on 大象传媒 Radio 4 on Monday 9th June 1975, a 大象传媒 editor immediately noted that 鈥榗ertain politicians had taken to the new conditions like ducks to water鈥�. Among them it seems was the Labour Minister Tony Benn, one of the very first to be heard on air that afternoon. The next day his performance was scrutinised by the Press - and by his somewhat exasperated Cabinet colleague Barbara Castle, who recorded this in her diary:
The newspapers are full of Wedgie鈥檚 鈥渢riumph鈥� at Questions yesterday鈥� Some of the most ecstatic comments were from enemy papers. 鈥淏ig Benn is the star of the air!鈥� said The Sun. 鈥淐ommons radio starts with sparkling Benn cut and thrust鈥� said the Financial Times. 鈥淏enn a hit in radio Commons鈥�, said the Daily Telegraph鈥� Which confirms my view that (a) the press are doing more than anyone else to build up Wedgie and (b) that you have got to have certain attributes to be a successful rebel: you must shine on the platform and in the House. Wedgie does both, which is why he can get away with murder.
Barbara Castle, The Castle Diaries 1974-76 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980)
Rubbing shoulders
In November 1974, the 大象传媒鈥檚 Director-General, Charles Curran, had suggested that broadcasters needed to be based inside Westminster rather than covering events remotely because 鈥榩oliticians invariably seemed to acquire a respect for people whom they knew鈥�. But for those journalists who got the job conditions behind-the-scenes proved to be far from ideal - as many of the 大象传媒鈥檚 written archives from the period reveal.
Space in the Palace of Westminster was limited. In April 1975, as the first experimental period of live broadcasting neared, the 大象传媒鈥檚 outgoing Political Editor, Peter Hardiman Scott wrote to the Leader of the House and the Sergeant at Arms to complain: the commentary seats 鈥� one for the 大象传媒 and one for the London commercial station LBC 鈥� were far too close for comfort, he claimed. They offered 鈥榲ery cramped conditions for two people who are likely to be working under some strain鈥�.
The rival broadcasters remained just 18 inches apart, and in June, once the live broadcasts had begun, another 大象传媒 journalist was complaining of 鈥榰nhealthy鈥� conditions in the commentary box: 鈥榠f a long debate were to be covered it would be vital to change commentators every two hours鈥�, he warned.
Among 大象传媒 managers, though, a bigger concern was the poor image that listeners were apparently getting of MPs as a result of their rowdy behaviour 鈥� made worse, the Corporation鈥檚 engineers thought, by microphones that failed to distinguish between those making a speech and those reacting to it.
In July 1975, the Head of Radio Drama, Martin Esslin, was comparing the noise of the Commons to badly rehearsed crowd scenes 鈥� 鈥榓lways unconvincing and always loutish鈥�. Others in Broadcasting House now began to wonder if coverage on TV might be a better option after all: viewers, they reckoned, might make more sense of all the 鈥榦ffending noises鈥� if only they could see who was making them and why.
The Controller attacks
When live radio coverage of Parliament was made permanent in 1978, most broadcasts were on Radio 4. But the network鈥檚 Controller, Ian McIntyre, was not a fan. He鈥檇 already attacked colleagues in news and current affairs for what he saw as too much emphasis on immediacy and not enough on elegantly crafted analysis. So on 12th April 1978, as senior editors gathered for their regular weekly review of programmes, McIntyre tore into coverage of the Budget 鈥� as the minutes of the meeting reveal:
Much of the material from Parliament so far had proved very intractable, and during this particular afternoon he [McIntyre] had felt he was witnessing a skilled potter offering a lump of raw clay to his customer, instead of a properly fashioned artefact.
The Controller went on to say that:
鈥� much had been made of 鈥渇urthering the democratic purpose鈥� by broadcasting from Parliament, but the 大象传媒鈥檚 Charter contained no such requirement. The 大象传媒鈥檚 business was making programmes, not relaying the source material for them, and making programmes was a highly skilled artificial business. As for the immediacy of broadcasting from Parliament, he was all for immediacy when it enriched the final result, as had happened in the case of Today in Parliament. But there was a difference between immediacy and incontinence鈥� Meanwhile, he regarded many relays from Parliament as 鈥渘on-broadcasting鈥� if not 鈥渁nti-broadcasting鈥�.
After the meeting, one of McIntyre鈥檚 bosses asked if he often committed 鈥榩rofessional suicide鈥�. Four months later Radio 4 had a new Controller. The parliamentary broadcasts remained.
The cameras arrive
What was it like for those working behind the scenes in the early days of televising Parliament? And how much difference did it make to have not just microphones but cameras filming the business of MPs.
One of those most intimately involved was Suzanne Franks, now Professor of Journalism at City University. In the late-1980s and early-1990s, she helped produce coverage, first of Parliament鈥檚 select committees, and then of debates in both Chambers. In this recently recorded interview, she recalls her period working at Westminster.
Beyond Westminster
When live broadcasting from Parliament became permanent in 1978, the new Controller of Radio 4, Monica Sims, wasn鈥檛 against the whole idea, like her predecessor, McIntyre. But she certainly believed too much political reporting was obsessed with what鈥檚 nowadays called the 鈥榃estminster Bubble鈥�. It wasn鈥檛 enough to shift politics from the TV studios back to Parliament, Sims thought.
What was needed was political reportage that broke free of the Chambers and the Lobby and spoke to the country at large. She also wanted Parliamentary broadcasting to be woven more carefully into the fabric of normal output - as she explained in an interview recorded with David Hendy in 2003:
I think, because of my Woman鈥檚 Hour and Children鈥檚 [TV] background 鈥� I wanted to take more account of the listeners鈥� needs, and what they said they wanted鈥� I did think that some of the news and current affairs was too Westminster/London-orientated. I was very anxious, straight away really, to involve the rest of the country much more鈥� I actually made spaces for a news bulletin on the hour all through the day and all through the evening, which wasn鈥檛 there before, as a regular part of the schedule鈥�
But I also wanted to increase the accessibility of a lot of the current affairs programmes, to a slightly less specialist audience鈥� Which is why I, in the end, after a very long argument, managed to get Westminster incorporated into the Today programme, instead of a separate switch-off for most of the listeners. Because within it, slightly shortened, it got a much wider audience鈥�
But John Cole [the 大象传媒鈥檚 Political Editor, 1981-92] didn鈥檛 approve of that, because nobody associated with Parliament could ever contemplate losing a minute of actual Parliamentary reporting. They just wanted as much as they could, in case the MPs, particularly, in case their constituents happened to hear them speaking.
Sims struggled to get the changes she sought. But she certainly wasn鈥檛 the last to worry about whether Parliamentary broadcasting was connecting with wider audiences and their everyday concerns, as her predecessors had always hoped it would when they campaigned for it back in the 鈥�60s.