Maggie & The 1990 Broadcasting Act

[James Martin]

The TV-AM thread has had me thinking about the 1990 Broadcasting Act and everything that came with it.

In her memoirs, Mrs Thatcher gives a few pages over to broadcasting. She says...

...the powerful duopoly which the BBC & ITV achieved ... encouraged restritive practises, increased costs and kept out talent.

She then goes on to say:

...the idea that a small clique of broadcasting professionals always knew what was best and that they should be more or less immune from criticism or competition was not one that I could accept.

So the Peacock committee was formed in 1985, which looked at advertising on the BBC but rejected it, with Willie Whitelaw even "threatening to resign from Government if it were introduced."

We all know what ultimately happened, and a major shake-up was given to the ITV system instead.

I wonder, however, if she went after the wrong side in hindsight? After all, ITV and the contractors/franchises who sailed in her were commercial businesses, whereas the BBC was built on public money. Thatcher does say her aim with Peacock was "to make the BBC more cost-conscious and businesslike."

Now, I'm not sure how viable the idea of advertising on the BBC was in the days of Peacock and only two commercial networks, but I'm certainly of the opinion it's not even remotely equitable now - if the BBC were forced to show adverts, that spend would ultimately come from existing commercial channels, weakening the likes of ITV and Channel 4 and potentially wiping out broadcasters smaller than those two. The pie is only so big.

But, should she have driven harder reform at the viewer-funded BBC as a priority over the commercially-funded ITV? Surely the BBC had similar issues, and I do have to ask how significant a role the unions played at the BBC following their demolishing at ITV, led by the TV-AM dispute? We know that "restrictive practises" were a thing there too, such as the Christmas 1978 dispute and a major run-in which saw the 1977 Eurovision Song Contest postponed, but was the union stronghold at the BBC weakened by the fallout from the TV-AM dispute, or did they have their own "Wapping moment?"

Likewise, was it easy for new talent to gain a foothold into White City at the time or was Channel 4 the only real opening for those not part of "the broadcasting establishment" as Maggie calls it?

I wonder if she'd gone after the BBC rather than ITV, would the BBC be a leaner, fitter corporation today and would market forces have forced ITV to pretty much sort itself out, had it been left to get on with it?

[Neil Jones]

Consideration has be given to Death on the Rock. It could be argued that did more to speed up the change that the 1990 act bought than anything else.

Said documentary gave Thames critical acclaim, but the IBA got dragged across the coals and were apparently still being badgered by the government not to allow the broadcast in the first place. But they allowed it, and then all hell broke loose. We know now Thames lost their licence, though it was never proved that that was because of Death on the Rock. They might have lost it anyway. The real victim seems to have been the IBA which allowed the broadcast in the first place.

[From The North]

Margaret Thatcher wrote:
...the powerful duopoly which the BBC & ITV achieved ... encouraged restritive practises, increased costs and kept out talent.
She then goes on to say:
Margaret Thatcher wrote:
...the idea that a small clique of broadcasting professionals always knew what was best and that they should be more or less immune from criticism or competition was not one that I could accept.

Terrible though as we know the only thing she actually achieved for a long time is to consolidate talent in London (still the case predominantly with ITV) and therefore keep out talent. What opportunites are there now to work in broadcasting in say Carlisle, Aberdeen, Plymouth amongst others?!

[Hatton Cross]

Consideration has be given to Death on the Rock. It could be argued that did more to speed up the change that the 1990 act bought than anything else.

Said documentary gave Thames critical acclaim, but the IBA got dragged across the coals and were apparently still being badgered by the government not to allow the broadcast in the first place. But they allowed it, and then all hell broke loose. We know now Thames lost their licence, though it was never proved that that was because of Death on the Rock. They might have lost it anyway. The real victim seems to have been the IBA which allowed the broadcast in the first place.

I suspect Thames would have lost it anyway. .

People forget in the 'fog' of the outfall from Death On The Rock, that Thames had two very bored and downsizing large shareholders, so bid for the franchise, because they 'had to'.
I've argued in the past with a very respected media commentator - and they agreed - that because of the shareholding issue, it was the ITC saving a lot of time just down the road, in awarding the London weekday franchise to Carlton Communications, simply because it would have been them who would would have picked off the main Thames shareholders with a large cash offer, had Thames retained the franchise.

Death On The Rock related to a Government assasination of Thames Television is now, a little more than a oft-reheated conspirecy theorists idea.

[James Martin]

Just to pick up on a point DTV has made on Metropol since I'm unable to answer it there.

This isn't about BBC bashing - I'm simply questioning why Maggie, based on her reasons for wanting to make changes to broadcasting, which are in black and white in her autobiography The Downing Street Years, switched her attentions away from the BBC, who were the targets of Peacock, to ITV instead? Was it DOTR? Was it the ACTT and Sapper?

I'm just wondering why she didn't go for the BBC like she did ITV, as to make Auntie a much more accountable, "cost-conscious and businesslike" system rather than what it was, and is, was much more in line with her ideologies than interfering with what were, ultimately, private sector companies.

I would argue a London-centric BBC was "keeping out talent" far more than ITV and Channel 4 with their regional centres and independent producers.

What we have now though is exactly that, with talent outside London, Salford and to a lesser extent Glasgow, with no chance of a look-in.

[RR]

the only thing she actually achieved for a long time is to consolidate talent in London (still the case predominantly with ITV) and therefore keep out talent. What opportunites are there now to work in broadcasting in say Carlisle, Aberdeen, Plymouth amongst others?!

Not sure that was anything to do with the franchise auction (and indeed that was October 1991, virtually a year after John Major had become PM). Wasn't that down to the mergers between franchise holders gradually allowed over the next decade or so and only after amendments to the 1990 Act?

[Humphrey Hacker]

"Death On The Rock" is one of the greatest pieces of investigative journalism in my opinion and its to Thames' eternal credit that they had the balls to turn round and tell Thatcher to **** off.Credit also to the IBA for defending Thames.

I don't believe it was a case of Thatcher going for the wrong company. I believe it was more of Thatcher wanting to "level down" every centre outside of London and with Salford being the only example she did it.

[James Martin]

"Death On The Rock" is one of the greatest pieces of investigative journalism in my opinion and its to Thames' eternal credit that they had the balls to turn round and tell Thatcher to **** off.Credit also to the IBA for defending Thames.

I don't believe it was a case of Thatcher going for the wrong company. I believe it was more of Thatcher wanting to "level down" every centre outside of London and with Salford being the only example she did it.

Thatcher didn't like DOTR but I think there was little she could really do. If anything, it was a free press in action so ideologically it was the very sort of thing she stood for.

By way of disclosure, I'm unapologetically a Thatcher fan for the most part; but not here: I believe she was so desperately wrong to dismiss it as "trial by television." It was a very fine piece of PSB like you say.

That's the thing with a free press, sometimes it means you might not come off looking too good. I always find it ironic that Channel 4 was a Thatcher creation. On one hand, it opened up the doors to new talent via the new independent producers that came forward to make shows for the new channel but on the other, most of the content, not to mention the communities and minorities it shone a light on, meant the output was decidedly left-wing in nature.

Again, my personal tastes aside I do actually think the television landscape has been poorer since those "risky" and "edgy" elements of C4 have been toned down. You do get occasional flashes of genius like It's A Sin but I'd love them to start really pushing the envelope once again.

I think it was Liz Forgan who said something along the lines of "the public will forgive us for many things, but what they won't forgive us for is being cowardly with our remit."

[Humphrey Hacker]

My political views are very different but that isn't relevant,

DOTR was the epitome of what I would call risky television. It proved that the government's story was so wrong and justifiably earned the plaudits and awards it received.

Channel 4 has certainly suffered more than most. It was a sensation in its early days but now has I feel fallen to the "woke" brigade. I'm not a drama fan so haven't seen Its A Sin. I fear the only way the envelope can be pushed again if there is a change again in our society. Far too much treading on eggshells.

Now if you will excuse me I'm just going to wash my hands for typing the "w" word.

[VMPhil]

Funny how the only time I ever see that word used is when it's being used in a derogatory way with quotes around it by those who hate it, otherwise I'd have never heard of it

[Blobs]

Channel 4 has certainly suffered more than most. It was a sensation in its early days but now has I feel fallen to the "woke" brigade.

Blimey, If you think channel 4 is "woke" now but wasn't in its early days then you obviously don't know very much at all about channel 4's early days!

[Inspector Sands]

Channel 4 has certainly suffered more than most. It was a sensation in its early days but now has I feel fallen to the "woke" brigade.

Blimey, If you think channel 4 is "woke" now but wasn't in its early days then you obviously don't know very much at all about channel 4's early days!

Not that there's anything wrong with a TV station being 'woke' of course. It's a lot better than than being asleep

[James Martin]

Channel 4 has always been woke. I'm not saying that's good or bad but it's an undeniable fact.

But again, is it not part of its alternative remit to be woke?

[Markymark]

Channel 4 has always been woke. I'm not saying that's good or bad but it's an undeniable fact.

40(almost) years ago the expression, 'progressive' was used to describe C4.....

[Blobs]

Channel 4 has always been woke. I'm not saying that's good or bad but it's an undeniable fact.

But again, is it not part of its alternative remit to be woke?

Part of its remit was/is to provide programming for minority groups. Which is a good thing. Only people who inexplicably have a problem with that dismissevly call it "woke".