This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Milland, Jeffrey Title: Paternalists, populists and Pilkington : the struggle for the soul of British television, 1958-1963 General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. Paternalists, Populists and Pilkington: The struggle for the soul of British television, 1958 - 1963 Jeffrey Milland A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts. Department of Historical Studies February 2005 80,417 words. Abstract This thesis examines crucial decisions made about British broadcasting in the five years after 1958, when television first reached five million homes in Britain, and when, it was believed, working-class people had become a majority of the audience. The Pilkington Committee on the Future of Broadcasting was commissioned after some years' uncertainty by a Conservative Government in 1960, allowing it to postpone determining its own policy. The Committee published its Report in 1962, recommending a second television channel for the BBC but not for ITV. The following year, there followed a paternalist and restrictive Television Act. The BBC's dominance in British broadcasting was, as a result, assured for several decades, and commercial television, which had made controversially large profits by exploiting the public taste for undemanding entertainment, was brought under the control of a strengthened Independent Television Authority, emerging from it only in the 1990s. But, at a time when, it was thought, social change meant the end of deference, British television, in which the paternalist tradition was ubiquitous, remained an area where deference was actually enforced. Viewers were expected, much of the time on all available channels, to accept the primacy of the taste of the educated middle-class. Although the Pilkington Committee's recommendation for restructuring ITV was rejected, its Report was nonetheless instrumental in confirming a long-lasting paternalist bias in the system. The thesis analyses the Committee's approach, and argues that its importance should be recognised. Why, it is also asked, did a Conservative Government acquiesce in establishing a pattern of broadcasting contrary to the principles of free enterprise and competition in which it professed to believe? The answer is found in the ambivalence about social change which characterised Conservatism until the Thatcherite victory of the 1980s, and in the puritanical anti-commercialism of the Left. 11 Dedication and Acknowledgements This work is dedicated to Tobias, Jacob, Sophie, Annabel, Gabriel, and Susan. None of them know how much each has helped. Where they have led, I have followed, as best I could. I should like to express my deepest thanks to my adviser, Professor Rodney Lowe, without whose wisdom, insight, knowledge and good humour, this work would have been infinitely inferior, had it ever been finished. I would also like to record a debt of gratitude to my good friend Dr. Lawrence Black for his wise, pertinent, and always helpful advice, and to Dr. Sian Lewis, without whose inspiration and encouragement I should never have started. A special debt of gratitude is owed to two members of Sir Harry Pilkington's family. Mrs. Jennifer Jones, his daughter, was particularly generous with her time, and very kindly granted me access to her father's diaries, which were in the keeping of Mr. David Pilkington, his nephew, who not only allowed me to borrow the diaries, but provided many fascinating stories about Sir Harry, for most of which I have been unable to find space. The warmth of their reception, and the kindness with which I was greeted, have left an indelible impression. I should also like to express my appreciation of the insight into the Pilkington Committee's operations I was fortunate enough to be given in two interviews with Betty Whitley, who very hospitably received me at her remote cottage in Galloway. With infinite patience, she recalled detailed impressions of the Committee at work forty years previously, and provided thoughtful and acute accounts of the individuals who served on it. Finally, Dennis Lawrence, 0.B.E., has been the kind of personal source whom few writers can hope to be lucky enough to find. Offering the warmest of greetings, over a series of meetings he spared himself no effort in attempting to ensure that my mistakes of fact and of comprehension were as few as possible. Although, as readers may discover, I find myself obliged to make some criticisms of what may be described as his Report, my respect for him as its principle author knows no bounds. All those who worked in television in the last four decades of the twentieth century owe him a huge debt in respect of his contribution to the medium. My personal debt, in particular, is incalculable. It is a privilege to possess his personal copy of the published Report, which he very kindly gave me. The mistakes that remain in the work that follows are, of course, my responsibility alone. Hi Author's Declaration I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of the University of Bristol. The work is original, except where indicated by special reference in the text, and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other academic award. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author. SIGNED.. 21 .DZ PS DATE.. iv Contents Abstract Dedication and acknowledgements iii Author's declaration iv Contents v Chapter 1: Paternalists versus populists (i) Introduction 1 (ii) Pilkington and historians 7 (iii) The relevance or otherwise of television theory 13 (iv) People and things 23 Chapter 2: Wiggle-dancers and the licence to print money (i) Introduction 26 (ii) Geoffrey Gorer, leleviewing', social class, and the moral panic 26 (iii) 'A special form of stalling' 31 (iv) The Conservative Party and the broadcasters 33 (v) Courting the Malvolio vote: the 1959 election and after 39 (vi) The search for a Conservative policy 43 (vii) The Independent Television Authority, its critics, and the critics of television 51 (viii) Enter Sir Harry, eventually 60 (ix) The most remarkable Pilkington 65 Chapter 3: The Committee at work: cultivating wholesomeness (i) Introduction 68 v (ii) 'Sir Harry's XI' 69 (iii) The secretary to the Committee 86 (iv) The weight of evidence 90 (v) The shadow of darkness: television as a moral agent 98 (vi) Deciding the future of ITV 104 (vii) 'Have fun now you are one'; make-your-mind-up time 106 Chapter 4: Pilkington and the BBC (i) Introduction: 'an exercise in psychological warfare' 116 (ii) Feeding the hungry sheep 117 (iii) Public relations 124 (iv) Victory 133 Chapter 5: 'The Bombshell' (i) Introduction 137 (ii) 'The purposes of broadcasting' 138 (iii) 'Pilkington tells the public to go to hell' 146 (iv) The Labour Party, Richard Hoggart, and 'the difficulties of democratic debate' 155 Chapter 6: Decisions on the BBC and ITV (i) Introduction 163 (ii) 'A wish for improvement' 164 (iii) 'Issues of great political and public importance' 166 (iv) The BBC returns to the fray 172 (v) The reform of ITV 180 (vi) A licence to lose money? 189 vi Chapter 7: Pilkington reassessed (i) Pilkington and social change 207 (ii) Pilkington and broadcasting 209 (iii) The long-term legacy: achieving quality and stifling debate 213 Appendix A: Extracts from oral evidence of Granada Television 219 Appendix B: Paper by Dennis Lawrence, October 1960 222 Appendix C: Extract from specimen schedule submitted on behalf of the Church of England Radio and Television Council, May 1961 225 Appendix D: Paper by Prof. F.H. Newark, September 1961 227 Appendix E: The arguments over pay-television 230 Appendix F: Popular newspaper summaries of the Report 237 Bibliography 244 vii 'I have absolutely no doubt that television as a whole has been a great invention and a great success. Very many millions of people have had their horizons broadened and their experiences enlarged, very many millions of people get a great deal of perfectly legitimate and innocent entertainment. To suggest, by omission, that this is not so would give all the ammunition possible to those that will want to make us appear as kill-joys, Third Programme enthusiasts, and defenders only of minority interests' Sir Harry Pilkington, Chairman of the Pilkington Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, in a letter to Dennis Lawrence, the Committee's Secretary, February 6, 1962.1 'Triviality is more dangerous to the soul than wickedness'. R.H. Tawney, addressing the Workers' Educational Association, quoted in the Association's written submission to the Pilkington Committee 2, and in the Committee's Report 3.