By Peter Stewart
Originally published in the New Zealand Listener, June 1 1985
News and Current affairs are my biggest headache
. This reluctant, yet frank admission was made by Gilbert Stringer, Director General of the NZBC throughout the 60s, as he stepped down in 1970. No doubt it has been echoed more trenchantly - if privately -by other executives responsible for television's performance since then.
To a degree, of course, Stringer's headache was caused not so much by what news and current affairs programmes did, or how they did it, as by the viewers' perception of what was being done and how.
For as television grew in confidence and its producers and journalists grew in experience, current affairs programmes, especially, became more forceful, the interviewing more direct.
But the conservative. New Zealand audience, which had readily accepted the first, relatively soft documentary-type programmes of Compass, for instance, became uneasy. Frank probing was frequently interpreted as brash aggression; endeavours to investigate the issue, rather than just accept the news story, were often seen as proof of political bias on the part of a public broadcasting service.
By its very nature, however, the news and current affairs area of television is always likely to provoke reaction. In the reporting and exploration of subjects of public concern, a raw nerve can easily be touched.
Current affairs, generally the object of more suspicion, grew up in the second half of the 60s with the long-running programme Gallery. It brought to New Zealand screens what was then regarded by purists as the true current affairs format - a film set-up of the issue followed by a vigorous studio debate.
Under their producer, Des Monaghan, Gallery personnel became the first current affairs "team" -a feature that has characterised virtually all programmes that have followed. The strength of the team has often determined the success or otherwise of the programme.
Gallery, in its time, set high standards. Although it had no competition, it fixed its own challenges, particularly the need to be topical. And it was the hour of the taxi driver, the farmer, and the housewife sitting down in the studio to discuss matters with the politician.
But current affairs came of age once the two independent channels were created in 1975. Now there was genuine, often fierce, competition between the news services. Dateline Monday and Tonight at Nine on TV1 were to be matched by Thursday Conference and News at Ten on TV2 (South Pacific Television).
There were to be dramatic changes in both the approach of television journalism and the attitude of viewers towards that reporting -and even to television generally.
In the news area, the bulletins of TV1, emanating from Avalon, continued to reflect the traditional, almost establishment view of national news. But from Auckland, TVZ offered a distinctive, alternative approach -a little more offbeat, a little more enthusiastic, perhaps, as befitted a new boy.
Certainly, during the five years of two channel competition, the political scene, and Parliament especially, were scrutinised more than had ever been the case, or, has been since.
And with this new vigour, it seemed that television was often demanding that the government of the day account for its actions publicly through the medium. In part, this may have been a response to an apparent lack of effective official opposition in the House of Representatives itself; in part, too, however, it stemmed from the self-assurance of some of those who determined the line of current affairs activity. There were times, unfortunately, when the crusading journalistic zeal was badly misplaced.
This period also coincided with the realisation by journalists that neither channel had a specific editorial policy relating to current affairs, other than the demand for balance. And balance was not necessarily required within every programme but could be achieved over a period or through successive programmes.
When the dominating figure of a leader like Robert Muldoon was also thrown into this active, journalistic arena, news bulletins and current affairs programmes, and those involved in making them (particularly on-screen personalities) became the focus of constant public attention.
The Muldoon phenomenon, in fact, probably did more to jolt people into a genuine awareness of television journalism, and that of current affairs in particular, than any constructive advance the medium itself could have made in this field.
The results were positive in some respects. Viewers became more critical, more discerning; producers had to sharpen up the professionalism of their presentation; journalists had to learn to take criticism -a difficult task in television where the ego threshold is relatively high.
But in more important ways, the results of the public debate were quite negative. Programmes were not allowed to settle down, and, like the broadcasting service itself over the years, were "chopped and changed".
In 1980 they were radically altered yet again as the two competing identities were merged into Television New Zealand. It was no consolation to suggest, (disregarding a lot of other factors) that perhaps the very vigour of the journalism had forced a political re-shuffle of television.
But now, instead of being the old TV2 source of an alternative news, Auckland became the arbiter of what is the mainstream national news. It is doubtful if it finds this responsibility an easy one and frequently appears to have difficulty in matching its news judgments with those of the rest of the country.
And more current affairs programmes, while perhaps covering a wide spectrum of stories, do not necessarily add up to dynamic current affairs. Nor should familiar titles mislead. The Eye Witness News of today, for instance, is nothing like the Eye Witness that used to screen on TV2. Today, the need to be "good television" - that is, being entertaining enough to hold an audience - may well be the paramount consideration. At a time of radical change in viewing habits, mainly because of the video revolution, any new, strong current affairs programme could face further difficulties. The scheduling of a programme can either make or break it. But unless a new programme could guarantee an audience for the advertiser, it is possible that it could end up being relegated to a "dead time". That, in turn. could affect the amount of resources - either personnel or budget - allocated to the programme.
In personnel terms, in the past, current affairs, and news, too often have seen the experienced people move on, or "up" to administrative positions. Television journalism would be that much richer had it managed to retain more of its mature personnel in the front line. Such is the nature of the television industry in New Zealand, however, that moving on is almost a predetermined event.
In financial terms, news and current affairs have probably never been better off than at present. Yet even this does not guarantee that New Zealanders will. be more deeply informed about domestic social and political questions, irrespective of what technology and satellites can transmit about international events. (It may be simply fashionable at the moment, for example, to suggest that Maori issues warrant far more attention than television currently gives them. But the fact remains that only a pitifully small number of important and relevant Maori concerns are looked at by the medium.)
Perhaps Gilbert Stringer would not suffer too many headaches from news and current affairs today. That would be a pity because one might then assume that the exciting, enterprising years of television journalism - warts and all - have been and gone. And yet there is still so much to be done.
Comments powered by CComment