The end of the honeymoon? Channel 4 blocks Loach series on trade unions

Scan page 3

What's on at our • Daturaay september eu, z.supm, stoke vewingion ov London N16. Speakers include Jeremy Corbyn MI, Anthony Kendall (leader, Hackney Council), Turkish trade unionists, and a speaker from the Kurdistan Solidarity Campaign. • Party Conference.

challenged.

ISU 30p plus 16p post from BM Box 5965, London WCIN 3XX After an initial honeymoon period of liberal' broadcasting policy, a crackdown is underway by executives of Channel 4 and their 'big brothers' in the IBA.

First casualty was the 'Friday Alternative' news programme. And now a major series of four 50 minute programmes directed by Ken Loach, in which rank and file workers address the thorny problem of union democracy, have been withdrawn from the Channel 4 schedules for September.

KEN LOACH Socialist Organiser.

'The four films entitled 'Questions of Leadership' were originally scheduled to go out every Saturday from September 10. This was pretty ideal timing in view of the TUC and the Labour It was then proposed that another, 'reply programme' which Channel 4 would commission, would follow the series to present the views of those union leaders and others whose views were But in subsequent discussions ana da te A 7Aum Canta- Ata. between the IBA and Channel 4, the details of which we do not know, it appears that this was rejected.

Probably this is linked with the attitude of Edmund Dell (the former right wing Labour minister turned merchant banker) in the chair of Channel 4.

First we were told that one of the four programmes should be dropped - any one programme, since apparently four films that allowed people to put a left wing point of view were too much for the British public.

Then it was said that in answer to our three programmes, there should be four replies: three should be immediate 25 minute replies to our 50 minute programmes, and one should be a more extended reply to the whole series.

Then that proposal, too, was dropped, and we were told a week Ken Loach's four-programme series shelved by Channel 4 deals both with specific struggles and issues in the labour moverent and with more general issues of democracy and accountability.

In the first film there is an examination of the Lawrence Scotts strike, and of the big struggles steel, BL, ASLEF, and the NHS pay fight. The second focusses on the EETPU, but goes A TOWN ON TRIAL naul, ago that the programmes had been pulled out of the schedules for September. The issue goes to a full IBA board meeting on Wednesday, and they . have taken cassettes for viewing: but they have already sabotaged the project by taking it out of the schedules since the films deal with current issues. The longer the screening is delayed the more they will become out of date.

Although Channel 4 executives appear to be formally standing_by the films, it is hard to know where they really stand. There appears to be a crackdown underway, with the axing of the Friday Alternative. Just recently Channel 4 was advertising in the Guardian for a journalist 'with right wing sympathies'!

It's possible Channel 4-might accept a screening of the programmes at an unfavourable on to look at ways of improving democracy in the unions, at the question of postal ballots and votes in workplace meetings.

. The third film looks chiefly at BL, including the victimisation of Derek Robinson, the management crackdown on the shop stewards' movement, and the sacking of Cowley militant Alan Thornett, before moving on to look at the right wing Labour viewing time. - — All the decisions are taken in secret, to the exclusion of the programme makers. We are not Committee for TransAtlantic understanding.

The final programme, following the formula of Loach's 'Question of Leadership' film, takes the form of a broader discussion of these experiences in a political context. Filmed in Warwick, it includes both rank and file militants and bureaucrats such as Ken Cure (AUEW), John Golding, Kate Losinska (CPSA) and others.

mov given reasons for the decisions, or any way of intervening. We are given no chance to answer allegations that are made about probalances and the arguments about Balance The argument over 'balance' is particularly fraudulent. None of the people on the four films have been on national TV to put thei point of view before. To argue that their views must at all costs be 'balanced' by people well-known tọ TV audiences and prominent in the press is obviously ridiculous.

It appears that one reason why they 'three programme' plan fell through was because when the TUC was approached by the BA to appear in an answering pro gramme, the TUC refused.

If this is true, then it would appear to give the TUC - and by implication anyone opposed to any programme or series of pro grammes - a potential veto simply by refusing to appear in it or in any reply. This would be a very serious precedent - though one which would obviously be used very selectively by the broadcasting authorities.

September 17:

----- pull-quotes -----

from behind bars