Britain’s Television Act of 1954: One Medium’s Effect on a Society

Joshua Altman Professor Dane Kennedy 20 th Century Britain May 5, 2008

Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

INTRODUCTION

When television came to the British masses it signaled the beginnings of a metamorphosis that was beyond suppression. Decades of a BBC monopoly provided a culturally unifying factor in both television and radio, but the Television Act of 1954 ended that monopoly, thus ending the unifying force 1. While debating the Act in Parliament, Ian Harvey MP said “Television is an instrument of communication and I am amongst those who believe that an instrument of such power of communication should not be vested in one single authority 2” The nature of British television changed with the Television Act of 1954. For the first time British broadcasting was open to competition and entities other than the BBC were able to produce content to air on channels other than the BBC 3. One condition of open broadcasting was that content had to be monitored, as it was no longer all created by the government. Created by the Television Act of 1954, the Independent Television Authority [ITA] took television one step further away from government regulation by functioning as an oversight body for Independent Television [ITV]. The ITA was responsible for licensing stations [franchises] and providing closer monitoring of content to ensure that it was appropriate for broadcast. Primarily, Members of Parliament concerned themselves with two major questions, the first being how television programming would be supported financially. Prior to the institution of independent television, government officials wanted the medium to be free of both government and corporate influences. In 1954, the United States provided the only model for independent television that the British could build upon. However, the British felt that American television relied too heavily on corporate sponsorship not only for commercial revenue, but for entertainment content as well. Fears abounded over what would be the result of moving television into the commercial realm. Elites saw the potential for a cultural manifestation of Gresham’s Law , a theory which anticipated the forcing out of something good by something bad. Sir Thomas Gresham (1519 – 1579) was an English financier whose theory applied specifically to different monetary commodities. However, application of the theory expanded to other fields as well, including British commercial broadcast media. The British intended to create a new form of commercial television, which forced the British populous to address their second greatest fear, and to look at the innards of their culture and the resulting shifts as to what commercialism meant in Britain.

2 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

BACKGROUND British broadcasting originated centered on public service wrote Patty Scannell, a senior lecturer at the Polytechnic of Central London 4. The BBC broadcast high quality programming to the British public and although it was a commercial venture, Parliament vested the power to ensure public service in the ITA 5. Broadcasting began in Britain in the 1920s as a public service with the BBC charter for radio (wireless) and was funded by the government through license fees (a tax) which remained in effect beyond the inauguration of Independent television 6. How to best serve the public was debated since the beginning of British Broadcasting. The Crawford Committee which convened in 1925 to discuss future funding and privatization invited John Reith, the first Director-General of the B.B.C (1927-38) to testify regarding the future of British Broadcasting 7. Paddy Scannell summarized Reith’s argument in Public Service Broadcasting: The History of a Concept: The service [BBC] must not be used for entertainment purposes alone. Broadcasting had a responsibility to bring into the greatest possible department of human knowledge, endeavour, and achievement. The preservation of a high moral tone – the avoidance of the vulgar and the hurtful- was of paramount importance. 8

Thirty years before the introduction of ITV, Reith summarized the entire argument against commercial television when he wrote “He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often creating a fictitious demand for lower standard which he himself will then satisfy.” 9 Reith further argued that the monopoly best served the public interest by most efficiently solving the emerging technical and financial challenges. In pursuit of a public service, and in the first move away from total government domination, Reith argued for the transference of the BBC from a private company to a public company under the control of the state. The Crawford Committee ultimately recommended that the BBC fit Reith’s ideal, and eventually the BBC became a corporation established by Royal Charter. The next major development in the progression towards independent television lay in the 1950 Beveridge Committee, the first major post-war look into the future of British Broadcasting, specifically radio. Findings of the committee held that a cultural Gresham’s Law would have the effect of ending the broadcasting monopoly 10 . “And because competition in broadcasting must in

3 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 the long run descend to a fight for the greatest number of listeners, it would be the lower forms of mass appetite which would more and more be catered for in programmes” reported the committee, specifically citing Gresham’s Law 11 . Independent Television was a commercial medium, and to remain solvent stations and program contractors [producers] needed advertiser revenue. Advertisers needed to reach large audiences in order to best sell their products. To this end, ITV programs needed to reach the largest consumer base. Members of Parliament and other elites feared that the money and the viewers would move in tandem to reach the lowest segments of society, and to compete the remainder of television would follow suit. In the years following 1954, the BBC was forced to investigate expanding beyond a minority appeal. ITV and the breakup of the monopoly forced the BBC to give consideration to who would watch any given show, and if that ratings share [TVs tuned into that program] would warrant retention 12 .

THE BEGINNINGS OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION Prior to Thursday September 22, 1955, Independent Television was a mere academic exercise in both theory and political rhetoric. The launch of ITV was a watershed event in British history. In one night, the BBC no longer held a monopoly over British Broadcasting, wrote Bernard Sendall, a former executive member of the ITA, and what was initially a Parliamentary exercise became a reality and the challenges of regular, independent broadcast were about to begin 13 . “Thus will begin a new form of television entertainment” reported The Times, Royal Edition on September 22. Commercialism in British Television began after an opening gala broadcast on ITV. Initially, programming held to traditional genres, with dramas leading in number of broadcasts during the first weeks of ITV. However, the new network could not survive on dramas alone. Attention was played to the intangible concept of balance, since no definition of what constituted true balance of programming yet existed. In addition to dramatic broadcasts there were the giveaway types of programming, niche programming geared to children and women, and newscasts both in the form of bulletins and longer format news programs with film 14 . Independent Television not only appeared on the newspaper’s second page the morning before its inaugural broadcast, it also appeared with the letters to the editor. Randolph Churchill, a former Member of Parliament and son of Prime Minister of Winston Churchill wrote a letter on

4 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

September 21 to the editor of The Times; Royal Edition which the newspaper published the next day. Randolph Churchill opposed Independent Television, which he described as “otiose.” 15 He questioned the effect of Gresham’s Law, but hoped that it would not have a significant effect. Opponents of ITV must be “objective” in how they viewed ITV; he wrote in the letter, these same people must hope that those who work in ITV “will produce something new in the field of entertainment which will tend to elevate rather than to degrade the public tastes.”16 The September 23, 1955 Arts section of the Times included two articles about television’s debut the night before. Column A’s headline (furthest to the right, and indicating the day’s most important news story) First Night of the I.T.A.; Emphasis on the “Stars” said that the broadcast did not set the stage for what ITV would broadcast in the future 17 . One column over BBC’s broadcast that evening garnered high praise from critics. Competition with ITV forced BBC to elevate their quality of broadcast from the first moments that ITV was on the air. The Times described the new program by calling it “as good as television has yet given us.”18 Initial stages of independent broadcasting brought fears over proper balance of programming. A clear definition of balance in programming never existed, however the term “balanced” referred to the distribution of equal time to all types of programming and to the proper proportions between different types of content. Responsibility to ensure a proper balance fell to the ITA and to this end the Authority utilized various means. Setting quotas, informal agreements, and official regulations all helped the ITA find the proper balance in programming 19 .

COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING AND AVOIDING THE AMERICAN SYSTEM The ITA held the separation of content and advertising sacrosanct to collect funds the ITA needed to ensure that at no time Britain’s moral fabric faced corruption from advertisers and program contractors 20 . Burton Paulu, former Director of the Department of Radio and Television Broadcasting wrote that the system devised by Parliament in 1959 and used by the ITA ensured that competition existed through a bid process which selected contractors on ability to pay and on their “standing,” although standing remained undefined 21 . The Conservative Government as well as the Labour Opposition saw the ease by which advertisers could gain control of content, as they did in the U.S. system where it was commonplace to incorporate the advertisements into the show, as well as pay a fee to purchase ad time. Parliament sought to prevent this from

5 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 happening in Britain 22 . Prior to the passage of the Television Act of 1954, Parliament had debated the evils of commercialism on British Media. The March 24 Debate in the House of Commons on the Television Act involved attempts to minimize the negative effects of commercialism 23 . Safeguards in the Television Act ensured that commercialism did not have adverse effects on British society at large. Legally, the power rested in the ITA to review broadcast lineups and the power to veto programs not in concert with community standards 24 . The first of such safeguards was to ensure that commercials did not interrupt viewer enjoyment. Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs said that there is no visible harm in an advertisement coming in between acts of a play or other natural breaks 25 . Advertisements which exist within these boundaries must not cause any negative effects on the viewers’ enjoyment of the program, and although separate, must fit the tone of the programming the viewer has chosen to watch. Members of Parliament did not want to see British television emulate the American structure. Eirene White MP said “in this country we are not likely to have in any system the grosser crudities that are found in American television, and for that we may be thankful 26 .” To protect Britain, the Principles of Television Advertising stated that advertisements "should be legal, clean, honest and truthful” 27 . Principles was a document issued by the ITA in 1955 as guidelines for advertising on television. Advertisers cannot create programming 28 . Unlike broadcasting in 1950s United States, where single advertisers both created and sponsored broadcasts and serials, British leaders specifically banned advertisers from being program contractors. Advertising regulations say that “advertisements must be clearly distinguishable as such and recognizably separate from the rest of the programme 29 .” Burton Paulu wrote that in Britain, sponsors were sponsors, not suppliers of programming 30 . Paulu wrote in 1961 that “advertising is to be used only to sell goods, not ideas.” 31 Banned were advertisements meant to influence opinion regarding legislation, political candidates, and political parties 32 . Advertising is a business, and parliamentarians knew that as a business the emerging medium would be viewed as a means for new and increased profit. BBC acted as a cultural mortar, and some held that advertisements would dissolve those achievements. Since advertising permeated other forms of communications, such as newspapers, it begged the question, “why

6 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 should advertisements be holy for ‘The Times’ and sinful for television,” said Walter Elliot MP during the debates on the Act 33 . “Television makes things famous” and “television changed the advertisement” wrote David Bernstein, Chairman of The Creative Business, in The Television Commercial: An Essay published in British Television Advertising: The First 30 Years 34 . As an advertising medium, television captivated its audience, first to interrupt the program, and first to intrude on its audience 35 . Television commercials penetrated the viewer regardless of whether or not they wanted the product 36 . “Presenter commercials”, where a personality pitched the product to the viewer as if they were on a showroom floor, invaded British living rooms across the island. Precedent for presenter commercials existed, although in a varied form in the United States 37 . “A word from our sponsor” meant very different things on opposite sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, the star of the show also served as the presenter, the advertiser also served as the sponsor of the program; therefore, “a word from our sponsor” literally meant a word from the producers, creators, and a single advertiser for whom the show was not only a means of entertainment but also a means to expand their consumer base. British television did not utilize the “word from our sponsor” approach, and spot advertising was king 38 . In this case, British television presenter advertisements were liberated from the constraints of the program leaving the producer to produce television 39 . Advertisers became a commodity in their own right, not simply advertising their products, but advertising themselves. Young & Rubicam, a global advertiser, put an ad in The Times; Royal Edition on September 23, 1955, the day after the first ITV Broadcast. Spanning three column widths, Young & Rubicam listed their early advertisements which appeared on television, including the first commercial to appear on British Television for S.R. Toothpaste 40 . Not all advertising could be for toothpaste, and none could be for political parties or for God; Britain needed a balance. Joseph Reeves MP, a member of the committee of inquiry into the BBC said during the Debates on the Television Act: “we shall never have a proper balance unless the Authority is given sufficient finance to provide many sustaining hours 41 .” He continued to say that if funds are not provided, ITV stations would be forced to take programming created by advertisers in order to sustain itself fully in the marketplace. Protections to ensure that the American models of advertiser controlled content were not realized in the

7 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

United Kingdom were written into the Act. Powers of the ITA included the ability to review scripts and broadcast schedules to ensure that it met programming standards. During the debate Sir Maxwell D. Fyfe said that the powers of the ITA were sufficient “to exert a close control over the programme or any programme contractor who shows himself to be, or is under the suspicion of being, susceptible to an undesirable influence 42 .” Avoiding what British elites perceived as the negative aspects of the American television scenario manifested itself as key goal of the ITA, and as such they set advertising limits. Only 10 percent of broadcast time, or 6 minutes of every hour could be devoted to advertisements 43 . One of the greatest fears of Parliament during the debates on independent television was that the American model of advertiser controlled broadcasting would achieve prevalence in Britain. Brian Henry argues that ITV was not successful in attracting advertisers, and that programming had to be dropped as a result of lack of revenue to support the content 44 . Bernard Sendall takes a different position on the success of ITV viewership. Sendall cites a Gallup poll taken in October, 1955 which showed that 60% of Londoners said they prefer ITV to BBC, and after only a month of penetration in Birmingham, 58% of viewers preferred ITV to the16% who preferred BBC, with the rest either responding “don’t know” or “no preference” 45 . Certain broadcasts must be immune from advertisements in the eyes of Parliament; these include political, religious, and royal broadcasts 46 . Precedent was set with the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. This was the first time political, religious, and royal broadcasting merged, and it occurred prior to the advent of ITV. The Public wanted to see the coronation ceremony and when cameras were initially banned from the coronation itself, there was a huge public outcry. Members of Parliament debated the dignity of the ceremony, feeling that someone watching on television might not give their fullest respect to the program, and that they might engage in such rude gestures as placing a cup of tea at their elbow 47 . Finally, issues surrounding broadcasts of this nature were debated at the highest levels of Parliament, and decisions regarding broadcasts were implemented resulting in the coronation being widely broadcast. Members of Parliament saw what happened when the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II aired in the United States with its advertiser-centric nature; commercials aired during coronation proceedings, which was viewed by the British as an act of grave disrespect. Fears loomed amongst British Parliamentarians, for if such an incident had occurred in the United States could it also occur in Britain? As disturbed as the British were by the airing of commercials during a

8 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 coronation, even more distressing to the British community, and further fueling the argument against the American television model, was that when shown in the US., the coronation was interrupted with a shot of J. Fred Muggs, the NBC chimpanzee!

AVOIDING THE INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN PROGRAMMING One provision of the ITA authorizing legislation contained the Proper Proportion Clause, which says: “a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin 48 .” As with many parts of the Act, the definition of sufficiently British in nature was left unclear, but it did not prohibit programming from other countries. Mr. Reeves said in the debates that a “proper proportion” is 80% native British broadcasts. Just as members of Parliament feared the degradation of British culture through advertisement, they also feared that commercially available American television would lower the standard of programming in Britain, thus resulting in the issuance of the Proper Proportion Clause. ITV broadcasts contained American programming totaling 15% of the total ITV broadcasts 49 . Programs imported to Britain included those popular with their American counterparts and those which still are considered the best of broadcasting over 60 years later; Gun Law, Highway Patrol, Gunsmoke, and I Love Lucy found an audience on the other side of the Atlantic in ITV viewers 50 . Looking at this list it is not challenging to see why the British public clamored for American programs. British viewers wanted to see the same entertainment as Americans, and there was no reason for ITV program contractors to create new programming when they could acquire well produced, high quality American programming for less than the cost of doing it themselves 51 . Members of Parliament perceived American entertainment in a positive light, and although British broadcasters utilized American programming on the BBC prior to competition, at issue was excessive American programming brought into Britain by commercial enterprises. Invasion of foreign content irked policymakers thus Parliament instituted the proper proportions clause 52 53 . Although the law banned great amounts of American programming, it could not ban American-influenced programs produced in Britain. Dubbed “unfortunate results of competition,” the strong influence of American programming in British-produced product lead to a British version of “This is Your Life” and a Jack Benny program produced in Britain for the home audience 54 .

9 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

The BBC saw themselves as morally superior to ITV. Cecil McGivern, Deputy Director for the BBC was highly critical of the content on ITV. McGivern said that the ITV was addicted to “wiggle dances, give-aways, panels, and light entertainment.” 55 BBC Governor Lord Macdonald saw the BBC responsible for program quality irrelevant of competition 56 . Provisions in the Act set the standards for broadcasting on ITV similar to those for the BBC, and the ITA had the authority to stop lascivious content from being broadcast on the airwaves.

NEWS AND INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMMING News and informational programming also found airtime on ITV. ITV stations received very little direction from Parliament regarding such broadcasts, dictating only that the broadcasts be fair 57 . Independent Television News (ITN) was created to use the medium of television to its fullest, while practicing good journalism 58 . Fears of Gresham’s Law in news content paralleled elite’s fears over ITV’s entertainment, that the broadcasts would be sensationalist and would appeal to the least educated members of society. Fears over Gresham’s Law implications in news were as unfounded as in entertainment; ultimately ITN and BBC News were very similar in content 59 . ITN used both BBC and American newscasts as models when establishing its style. Similar to the American fashion, lighter news was used at the end of the broadcast, while in contrast to the American style, more in depth pieces were incorporated into regular broadcasts rather than be set aside in their own program, such as a documentary. Broadcasts purely of a political nature needed to be produced, but could not favor one party over another. ITV is prohibited specifically in the Act from creating these broadcasts, and 60 must relay in whole the BBC Political Broadcasts . Since the first BBC charter, the Postmaster- General used his veto power over BBC programming to ensure unbiased reporting, and to prevent the BBC from editorializing 61 . Similar provisions found their place in the Television Act of 1954. Banned were broadcasts which would serve to benefit a political party, banned were advertisements from religious, political, and controversial broadcasts 62 . Under the BBC the Fourteen Day Rule, or the Fortnight Rule, protections existed as an informal agreement between the BBC and government intended to protect the BBC. Invented by the BBC to alleviate the pressure on broadcast ministers and their ministries to scoop a story, the BBC was precluded from broadcasting political matters more than fourteen days prior to a scheduled parliamentary debate 63 . The BBC was not going to be scooped on any stories by the

10 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 rising ITV, and the ITA did not intend to enter a debate for which it was not prepared. The BBC challenged the government, and if Parliament intended on keeping the arrangement in place, Parliament would need to codify it, and that is what Parliament did 64 . As Postmaster-General, Dr. Charles Hill used powers vested to him under the Television Act to ban the Authority from broadcasting information regarding an issue before Parliament prior to fourteen days before debate. Hill instituted an additional provision on the ITA which said that from the introduction of legislation to the time where it receives “the Royal Assent or is previously withdrawn or dropped” no Member of Parliament will be broadcast discussing that issue65 .

CHILDREN’S PROGRAMMING ON INDEPENDENT TELEVISION Parliament feared the corruption of vulnerable segments of society including children, and in the 1954 Television Act Parliament included provisions to protect children from the influences of television. Prior to the Act, the BBC had strong children’s programming, and the onset of competition left individuals with fears that lesser quality ITV children’s programming would lower the quality of BBC children’s programming. Even prior to ITV, the BBC surveyed young viewers between the ages of five and twenty. Summary findings published in The Times; Royal Edition, reported that 85 percent of children between the ages of five and seven viewed children’s orientated programming on a daily basis 66 . Independent Television’s program contractors found greater success than the BBC in attracting younger viewers, while finding milder success amongst parents 67 . Figures trended downward as children aged and only eight percent of those sixteen and over viewed children’s television 68 . It was of public necessity to protect children from evils of commercial television, whose effects in other countries were not yet known. The Times; Royal Edition published a letter to the editor on July 1, 1953 from university leaders from across England. University leaders foresaw a cultural decline resulting from commercial television. The authors of this letter specifically cited the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and the differences which arose in the BBC and foreign commercial broadcasts 69 . “…we are convinced that to place television on a commercial basis which must mean that the programme is determined by the criterion but of popularity would be to throw away an instrument with very great possibilities for good.” 70

11 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

Attempts were made to focus programming around the family, and around the daily family schedule. The BBC subscribed to, and ITV adopted the Toddler Truce, an agreement to cease all programming between 6 and 7 in the evening so children could be put to bed without competition from television wrote Brian Henry, a Marketing and Sales Director of Southern Television (and ITV Franchise) 71 . ITV’s participation in the truce was short lived however. In 1957 the Postmaster-General abolished the Toddler Truce paving the way for programming between 6 and 7 in the evening. Neither BBC nor ITV filled the slot with children’s programming, but broadcast news and informational programming extended as early as 5 PM, hoping that the viewers’ loyalty would remain steadfast throughout the evening 72 . Peter Homans, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and of Religious Studies in the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1983 defined the psychodynamic core as “tensions arising within the contemporary family between autonomous, dependent, and authoritarian modes of psychological organization.” 73 The need for conflict provided the central element for television and television without conflict would be bland. Parent’s roles in determining programming for their children were paramount wrote Burton Paulu in British Broadcasting in Transition , and children cannot be the center of all programming before nine at night 74 . Daytime television is viewed across all sections of society, and to limit themes presented in the broadcast only to those which everybody would find acceptable would not be possible. These hours did not incorporate themes such as familial instability and infidelity 75 . Not to incorporate conflict into children’s television would serve only as to spell the end of end of children’s programming. Characters are necessary for conflict, and inherently one will serve as the hero and the other the villain 76 . There is no need however in children’s programming to accentuate “brutality” over “healthy combat.” 77 A parent’s role in the viewing habits of children extended not only to what was appropriate for their children to watch, but also when to watch. Lady Tweedsmuir MP said in the debate “it is bad for children to be glued for hours to the television screen. But I submit that it is the duty of parents to keep the balance in allowing their children to view programmes 78 .” Television’s effects on children are not solely negative, it can have positive effects on children and the family said Lady Tweedsmuir in the same debate. Television bonded the family around the set; children and husbands would remain at home giving families the shared experience of viewing a program, and would then be able to discuss and debate. 79

12 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

The children’s programs offered by the two entities varied, with the BBC airing more conservative programming produced Britain 80 . A child who tuned into BBC programming would find classics, puppet shows, and programs that taught hobbies 81 . ITA programming caused more strife for families, could not meet the more sophisticated standards of the BBC and took more chances with the potential to disturb critics. Highlights of ITA children’s programming were Popeye (an American program), and a domestically produced Adventures of Robin Hood 82 .

RELIGIOUS PROGRAMMING IN INDEPENDENT TELEVISION Even prior to the debates on the Television Act of 1954, religious leaders saw the institution as a means for evil. Dr. Fischer, Archbishop of Canterbury spoke at the Canterbury diocesan conference on June 30, 1953. The Times; Royal Edition quoted Fisher: “We shall be no worse off with it [ITV] and probably be a good deal better off.” 83 The article continues to say that the social effects of television are so powerful that commercial television without state control would be highly dangerous 84 . “It [the ITA] is the defender of public standards 85 .” Said Joseph Reeves MP during the debate on the Act, these standards explicitly involve religion. The BBC had the benefit of a committee to monitor content to ensure that it falls within the guidelines of proper religious taste. This safeguard was needed for the ITA to protect the faith, or the resources of the BBC are needed to aid the ITA in this necessary task 86 . Early years of ITV broadcasting sought a balance in [commercial] programming, a balance in advertisement, as well as a balance in religious programming. England has a diverse religious population and once religion took to the airwaves there needed to be a form of regulation to ensure that broadcasting did not disproportionately favor one religion over another. The rule was set to represent the population with seven broadcasts from the Church of England, four from the Free Church and two from the Roman Catholic Church 87 . One of the most successful religious broadcasts was the Sunday Break , a Sunday school on television geared towards a teenage audience uncommitted in their religious affiliation and to be shown at a time convenient for them, namely Sunday nights between 6:15 and 7:00 PM 88 . Teenagers are not an easy audience to reach, and are quick to reject programming deemed “uncool”, and in order to reach these viewers with religious programming, attempts were made to make the show contemporary. Religion was interspersed as a discussion amongst peers on a

13 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 youth club set, and when not discussing religion, jazz and other popular music was played 89 . Geared towards youth who already had a religious affiliation, the show found success, gaining the support of the Central Religious Advisory Committee. It attracted six million viewers, including 1.5 million viewers under age 16. Sunday Break viewers were not predisposed to going to religious services or watching religious programming, but amid criticism regarding how the program played “fast and loose” with religion, producers felt pressured to switch to a more conventional format of preachers and traditional music 90 .

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ON INDEPENDENT TELEVISION Concerns regarding appeal to “low-brow” tastes in entertainment and information were unfounded; yet this did not stop middle and upper class British citizens from seeing ITV as commercial, lower class, and selling out culture for a profit. Simply put, ITV was not the BBC 91 . Peter Homans defined entertainment as part of mass culture as entertainment which would appeal to those who are not the upper echelons of society; entertainment which would appeal to “high-brow” tastes would be considered high culture92 . Community standards saw its first major clash between the high culture and mass culture in 1956. The ITA came into conflict with A-R, an independent program contractor, saying that the ITA felt that a show with footage of bullfighting [a criminal act in Britain] would offend a significant portion of society, but the ITA was not willing to exercise its censorship privileges. A-R did not pull the broadcast since it felt that only a minority of people would be offended 93 . ITV and its privately produced programming were attracting an audience which the BBC would never have attracted. The Times Royal Edition printed Parliamentary questions on the issue. Joseph A. Sparks, a Labour Member of Parliament who voted against the Television Act, posed a question to the Postmaster-General, whose ministry regulated broadcast communications for the government, as to whether the ITA would block the programming pursuant to the Television Act 94 . The issue at hand in the debate was not the community standard, but the illegality of bullfighting in Britain. In a written response the Postmaster-General said that this alone would not qualify as a reason to block the program from airing 95 . The Act does not set limitations regarding what is to be prevented from broadcast, and what is not; it is left to the discussion of the ITA and the Postmaster-General. This first clash set the precedent that even in cases where

14 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 the actions depicted were illegal in Britain, and opposed the community morals, the government would not intervene with the broadcasting of such activities. Who were ITV viewers? First, ITV viewers were not the opinion making elite; in fact the elite were the people most inclined to have problems with ITV. As a mass medium, ITV drew from mass culture; the working class specifically was more predisposed to watch ITV than BBC based on Homan’s definition of mass culture. Working class families, although more inclined to watch ITV had less disposable income and ITV viewing came at an additional expense, causing a conflict for the potential viewership. Purchasing a television set in Britain did not guarantee permission to view the content. In order to use the television, one then had to purchase a license to do so, either from the BBC, ITV, or both. To view the new programming, a new license was required with the purchase of a new television set, leaving the potential viewership those who could least afford the technology. Competition was the intent of the Television Act, giving the British people an option in what to view. Leaders of the BBC knew that this would be a problem, but opinions differed as to what would be an acceptable level of viewer loss. Experience from the first few weeks of ITV broadcasting showed that the new broadcasting system needed to be a mass medium, to draw viewers from Peter Homans’ definition of mass culture rather than the high culture 96 . ITV used audience polls to see what viewers would accept and the results showed that programs which were shunned by critics frequently gained a wide acceptance with ITV viewers 97 . The Board of the BBC looked at their show ratings, and different governors of the BBC interpreted ratings in different ways. All governors knew that individuals needed different licenses to view ITV and BBC programming. It would not be financially sound for viewers to purchase licenses to view programming which they would not watch 98 . No consensus existed within the upper echelons of the BBC regarding the handling of Independent Television. Asa Briggs, a life peer in the House of Lords and professor of modern history, retells the first meeting of the BBC Board of Governors after the launch of ITV. Two issues reigned supreme at this meeting, the first was Gresham’s Law and the second was ratings 99 . Regarding Gresham’s Law , BBC leaders sought to maintain their quality in programming. Director of Television Broadcasting, Sir George Barnes said “to seek success in popularity alone is a trivial use of a great invention.”

15 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

Relative ratings measured the number of people watching the BBC as compared to ITV. Using the measurement “audience share,” [the number of televisions in use viewing a particular program] BBC governors attempted to disambiguate what would constitute sufficient viewership to ensure that a majority of people continued to purchase BBC licenses. Sir Ian Jacob, Director- General of the BBC, said that a majority of people would still feel it beneficial to buy a license if the BBC retained an [overall] average 35-40 share. Two years later, in 1957, Jacob’s successor Hugh Carleton Greene said that a [overall] 50-50 split between the BBC and ITV needed to ensure that enough people still bought licensees 100 . During the intervening year between Jacob’s and Greene’s tenures, Gerald Beadle ascended to Director of Television and looked at ratings in a different light. Prepared to see BBC overall ratings drop to an average 33 share he looked at the ratings of individual programs. Two methods existed to look at show ratings, plural [share of viewers watching] and the target demographic [share of viewers in the intended viewer group watching]. Briggs recounted no specific number was forth for what would constitute sufficient retention for individual shows 101 .

CONCLUSIONS Lack of consensus amongst the BBC regarding how to react to ITV only highlighted Britain’s need for competition in broadcast media. American influences in people, money, and programming provided options for the British. The result was that a unifying force which had held together British culture for three decades had become a dividing factor on the night of September 22, 1955. Once a mass market alternative to the limiting BBC programming came into existence the average person began receive and view content tailored to their needs. Of all the cultural shifts that resulted from the breakup of the BBC monopoly, response to consumer demand and ratings provided the basis for the remainder of broadcast competition to grow. Prior to competition, the BBC held a 100 share and responding to consumer demand proved less than necessary. Consumer habits are to watch whatever is being broadcast, and if there is only one option viewers will watch it irrespective of quality. If viewers desired to relax in front of a television set and enjoy the family connections which Lady Tweedsmuir sought, no choice outside BBC existed. Realization of Gresham’s Law was the greatest fear prior to Independent Television, and the greatest fallacy after ITV launched. Elites who were not predisposed to watching ITV saw

16 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008 themselves as protectors of British culture, and feared that to allow commercialism to infiltrate the medium would lower the quality of British television and culture. A cultural Gresham’s Law never manifested in Britain in spite of all the great fears surrounding commercialism. The question of why Gresham’s Law never manifested is not easily answered. The British People proved to be more sophisticated than their government credited them for being prior to the launch of Independent Television. Simply because ITV catered to the working class rather than the upper class as did BBC for decades, did not mean a decline in program quality would follow. However the parliamentarians and other elites feared new types of programming, which a mass audience could enjoy. A domestic manifestation of the imperial concept of educating societies’ underlings and demonstrating culture for them lay in the basis of the BBC monopoly. The crumbling of this power structure left British elites with a fear of Gresham’s Law rather than with open arms. In the modern era the BBC and ITV both still exist, and provide similar functions compared to their role in the 1950s. However a third form of competition has entered the picture. With the advent of the internet people can watch anything from across the globe with the click of a mouse. Both BBC and ITV have expanded to work with the new medium by webcasting their own content, posting schedules online, and creating online special features not available via broadcast. A system for the tracking of website visits in the same way that the BBC looked at ratings share in the 1950s is both recent, and hard to interpret. The BBC adapted to ITV, and both have adapted to the internet and continue to do so. Competition worked; BBC’s and ITV’s audiences differed, those with political, economic, and social power gravitated towards the traditional broadcasting on BBC while working class viewers gravitated towards audience-geared content created for them which broadcast on ITV. Children remained safe, faith remained intact, and, contrary to initial British predictions and fears, American influence did not corrupt centuries of British culture.

17 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

1 Hajkowski, Thomas. 2005. The BBC and National Identity in Britain, 1924-1954. Evingtson: Northwestern, University. http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdweb?did=1068215761&sid=1&F mt=2&clientId=31812&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed March 11, 2008). 2 25 March 1954. 1954. In House of Commons Official Report , 1434-1560. Fifth Series. Vol. 525. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.1519 3 Briggs, Asa. 1985. The BBC, the First Fifty Years. Frome and London: Wyvern Typsetting Ltd. 4 Scannell, Paddy. 1990. Public Service Broadcasting: The History of a Concept. In Understanding Television , ed. Andrew Goodwin and Garry Whannel, 11-29. Studies in Culture and Communication. London: Routledge. 11. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 12. 7The BBC. n.d. Committees of Enquiry. http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/more/pdfs/committees_of_enquiry.pdf. 8 Scannell, Paddy. 13. 9 Ibid.13. 10 Ibid.17. 11 Ibid. 17. 12 Lloyd, Dennis. 1958. Some Comments on the British Television Act, 1954. Law and Contemporary Problems 23 (1): 165-74. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023- 9186%28195824%2923%3A1%3C165%3ASCOTBT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q (accessed March 11, 2008).173. 13 Sendall, Bernard. 1982. Independent Television in Britain: Volume 1; Origin and Foundation, 1946-62. London: The MacMillan Press LTD. 319. 14 Ibid. 326 15 Churchill, Randolph S. 1955. Commercial Television. Letter to the editor. London The Times , September 23, Royal Edition, sec. 9. 16 Ibid. 17 "First Night" for Viewers; Debut of the I.T.A. Service. 1955. London The Times , September 22, Royal Edition, sec. 2. 18 Wapping Melodrama; BBC Television Drama at Its Best. 1955. London The Times , September 23, Royal Edition, sec. 5. 19 Paulu, Burton. 1961. British Broadcasting in Transition. University of Minnesota 78. 20 Paulu, Burton. 1961.49. 21 Ibid.51. 22 Ibid. 52. 23 23 Paulu, Burton. 1956. Britain's Independent Television Authority (Part I). The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television, 10 (4): 325-36. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1549- 0068%28195622%2910%3A4%3C325%3ABITA%28I%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W (accessed March 10, 2008). 332. 24 Paulu, Burton. 1961. 40. 25 25 March 1954. 1448. 26 25 March 1953, 1504 27 Paulu, Burton. 1956. Britain's Independent Television Authority (Part I). 332. 28 25 March 1954. 1449. 29 Paulu, Burton. 1956. Britain's Independent Television Authority (Part I). 331. 30 Paulu, Burton. 1958. Britain's Independent Television Authority (Part II). The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television, 11 (1): 55-69. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1549- 0068%28195623%2911%3A1%3C55%3ABITA%28I%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I (accessed March 11, 2008). 58. 31 Paulu, Burton. 1961.46. 32 Ibid.. 33 25 March 1954.1476 34 Henry, Brian, ed. 1986. British Television Advertising: The First 30 Years. London: Century Benham.253. 35 Ibid. 256. 36 Ibid. 256. 37 Ibid..257. 38 Ibid. 255.

18 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

39 Ibid 40 ADVERTISMENT: In order of appearance TV Commercials prepared by Young and Rubicam Advertising. 1955. London The Times , September 23, Royal Edition, sec. 6. 41 25 March 1954. 1495 42 Ibid. 1449. 43 Henry, Brian, 36. 44 Ibid 47. 45 Sendell. 135. 46 25 March 1954. 1447. 47 Paulu, Burton. 1961. 263. 48 25 March 1954.. 1476 49 Paulu, Burton. 1956. British broadcasting; radio and television in the United Kingdom. 335. 50 Ibid, 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 280. 53 Ibid.335. 54 Ibid..289. 55 Briggs, Asa. 301. 56 Ibid. 300 57 Paulu, Burton. 1961. 91. 58 Ibid. 91. 59 Ibid. 93. 60 Ibid. 103 61 Ibid. 40. 62 Ibid.41. 63 Sendall, Bernard. 333 64 Ibid. 334 65 Ibid. 334 66 Children and Television; Habits of Minors. 1955. London The Times , January 6, Royal Edition, sec. 11. 67 Paulu, Burton. 1961.126. 68 Children and Television; Habits of Minors. 1955. London The Times , January 6, Royal Edition, sec. 11. 69 Ashby, Eric. Et al. 1953. Commercial Television. Letter to the editor. London The Times , July 1, Royal Edition, sec. 7. 70 Ibid. 71 Henry, Brian, ed. 1986. British Television Advertising: The First 30 Years. London: Century Benham.. 34 72 Ibid.58. 73 Homans, Peter. 1983. Psychology and Popular Culture: Psychological Reflections on M*A*S*H. Journal of Popular Culture 17 (3): 3-21. 11 74 Paulu, Burton. 1961.125. 75 Ibid.125 76 Ibid.125 77 Paulu, Burton. 1961.125 78 25 March 1954. 1503 79 Ibid. 80 Paulu, Burton. 1961.125 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid,, 126 83 "No Great Desire" For Sponsored T.V.; Dr. Fisher on Common-Sense Collation. 1953. London The Times , July 1, Royal Edition, sec. 3. 84 Ibid. 85 25 March 1954. 1496 86 Ibid. 87 Henry, Brian, 280. 88 Henry, Brian. 282 89 Paulu, Burton. 1961. British Broadcasting in Transition. 128.

19 Joshua Altman Britain’s Television Act of 1954 May 5, 2008

90 Paulu, Burton. 1961. British Broadcasting in Transition . 129. 91 Sendall, Bernard. 329. 92 Homans, Peter. 3. 93 Sendall, Bernard. 327 94 Paulu, Burton. 1956. British broadcasting; radio and television in the United Kingdom. University of Minnesota Press.8. 95 Bull Fight Film on Television; M.P,'s Objection. 1955. London The Times , September 24, Royal Edition, sec. 3. 96 Homans, Peter. 1983. Psychology and Popular Culture: Psychological Reflections on M*A*S*H. Journal of Popular Culture 17 (3): 3-21. 3 97 Sendall, Bernard. 329 98 Briggs, Asa. .300. 99 Briggs, Asa.300. 100 Briggs, Asa.300. 101 Briggs, Asa. 301.

20