thumbnail of The First Amendment; From London: Nora Beloff
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
WGBH Boston in cooperation with them is going to court Democratic Mary Kay from the School of Communication at the Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people and examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s and now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Ruben. This edition of The First Amendment and a free people is coming from the British broadcasting studios in London England. And I'm delighted to have as my guest Nora BELOFF the well-known British journalist and author. She's been on the observer the famous London newspaper for almost all of her adult life and after training at Reuters News Service and has been Washington correspondent for different lengths of time assigned to the White House beat under all presidents since Harry Truman. Nora BELOFF has also been chief political correspondent between 1900 and 64 in one thousand nine hundred and seventy six of the observer. She resigned is now doing freelance
work and has been very much concerned about the issue of trade unions and the press having a new book out which is called Freedom underfoot which if you knew British politics has a double meaning because there is a notable journalist named foot here. Also she is the author of the general tso's know about General de Gaulle and the occasion of his veto of British entry into the European Economic Community. Ms BELOFF. Why don't I start by asking a very difficult question and a general one but one that will permit you access to your most important thoughts. What is the state of freedom and responsibility of the British press today and what are some of the grievous issues which it must now face. Well I think we are all of us worried about the state of the British press
and that is why quite recently the government set up a commission to report on it it came out recently had a gloomy report in which the commissioners said they were saddened but nothing had much to recommend about how we could put things right. And to me the big water is of the moment. There's a threat of Monopoly and I use water is in the plural because I see monopoly coming from two sides and both of them alarm me and I have been involved in thinking about how we could fight off those threats. One threat of monopoly is wrong which for various reasons. I think the Americans have not been exposed and that is the threat that one single trade union. Which is a ball a day which is than not midday in British Thames not meant it to prevent protect the welfare or negotiate for good conditions and high
pay and good fringe benefits but also has a body which has its political beliefs and policies missions every hour about what is support that journalists have to belong to that single trade union. This is the National Union of Journalists that single union is the national union agendas that used to be a LOL which prevented a closed shop said that if you wanted to write in a newspaper and they said the other members of the staff said oh you've got to join the National Union of Journalists you could end cyst on your rights and their health and of course the people felt the intimidation and the pressure and so on and gave in but you could you could appeal to the industrial tribunal and say that you were not accepting this and you could still go on being a qualified journalist. But there's no legal protection now and then there are some publishers who are absolutely refusing to allow players shop and some of them even got strikes on their hands because they will not accept the principle. And I myself take an active campaign against a union
monopoly because I think it's wrong. That is in my view a very serious threat and one which is in the if we fight about it is it is now being waged the second monopoly which is the one which concerned the royal commission a good deal more. Though they had nothing useful as far as I can see to say about it was the threat of monopoly ownership. Now why do things always surprise me and as you said earlier about not being to states a great many times and I spent a lot of my adult life in the states is that the Americans are on most things much more sensitive and worried about monopolies and cartels and have got a great deal of legislation against it and very scornful and that the Europeans of the British and Stalin who allow monopolies and allow ranges between businesses and allow in fact gradually one group to take control and that to be a monopoly whereas in America it would not be allowed.
We have our in monopolist legislation now but it was that late in coming and in many ways people get round it. The Americans are strong against monopoly in most things but the amazing thing to me is that they didn't seem to be a too worried about the monopolies in the prestes in many areas most areas in fact most great cities in America. Give Their give their citizens no charge at all when they get up in the morning they either read that one particular newspaper or they don't have a paper. It's like in the Soviet Union with profit I'm not saying the papers are alike there is no choice in Britain so far and I think this is situation is very much in peril announce it as a royal commission. I don't know how long it's going to last. But now when you get up in the morning in Britain you can decide between a whole lot of daily newspapers up market and downmarket serious and frivolous leftwing rightwing business sporty. There is such a lot of different newspapers to choose from and that I think is very precious. I think a plural
press is a very essential part of democratic if it is it in. Now in Britain there are nine national newspapers and a host. You somewheres like the provincial newspapers. Yes but is it because most of the life written political financial and so on emanates from London and nowhere else that the national newspapers you can pick any one that you want. There is a monopoly of place where is whereas in the United States. Chicago based newspaper monopoly is not a San Francisco based one. We are concerned about newspapers owning radio stations and saturating an area we've done something about that with radio and television standing right here you're absolutely right. Our concerns about monopoly are different. Now your uro's the issue of the union monopoly. Is this something about organizing all of the reporters and editors I guess just the
reporters as as workers. This is something that goes with socialist doctrine or or is this something that well frankly are the other unions on the wrong tack why are they so serious about this. Well Martin you know I don't think it's a devastation and I don't like the word socialism anyhow because it means so many things to say many people and labor party Labor Party doctrine. Well the Labor Party to a certain extent the Labor Party is different from most socialist parties you call the left wing parties have you like set in European countries because it is the trade unions are an organic part of the polity but it has its political wing and it's a destroyer wing and movement. Combines the two and when you have congresses every Yeah and when you have a party declarations it represents the two things. Now the trade unions care a great deal about a clue as job and one can easily see why. Because if a man has a thousand employees and 900 all
demanding to get better terms of the others are willing to work for less. He can and there's unemployment to this difficult situation. He can get uppity with his hundred base he can find the other extras and he can push down a hoedown and many as has in fact damaged the chances of the negotiating team the union negotiates but unless he has a closed shop he can't get it as toughly and I can see this is very important to the unions and they fought it very very hard. But the pressure is to me and I've argued this with the unions maybe it is necessary with certain safeguards to have a closed shop and some in their midst in distress perhaps but in the newspapers should be treated differently because. The newspapers journalists cannot allow a union to be spokesman because he must be the spokesman himself for his and ideas and the ideas will vary tremendously it's terribly objectionable to have one group of men or men and women
who represent journalists because journalists by that in the nature of that calling must all think for themselves express their views stand for that and things. And some of them a very anti-trade union why shouldn't they be there others who are mad it for the unions. This would be very difficult if they were anti trade union and there was a closed shop and they said or wrote something that was not appreciated and held being unfair and and and lost their status in the union. They're one of two cases of this now in readiness letters which are being contested. That has happened. I think that the union movement is a good movement in many ways but I do think that the clothes shop in any situation for any creative person is a threat to fundamental constitutional privileges as we understand them at home and in Britain. Yes well that was the reason I wrote this book that you were mentioning earlier on freedom under foot. I began looking at this thing because I myself was involved I
left the NUJ this union where they were trying to get everybody and enjoy a smaller one because I objected to mandatory meetings which we had made to come to and regimentation and motions every Yeah putting us on one side in political issues that this is no agenda the same absent except this a union can be that spokesman and so I then left and I then became very involved and I began to think about it and I began to interest myself in how you could protect the individual journalist against this kind of thing and I got a lot of support from other journalists and from editors and by the way you know when you said journalists knew you hesitated I did it is many editors and deputy editors and it's of department of national editors or political editors they would have to join you know there are very very few exceptions the editor in chief sometimes in some papers is out. But if that if and when in those papers where they have accepted a close shop the editorial side is very much involved. You know if we if we accept that this is one of the major
issues. This leads us to another question regardless of the union issue a monopoly from the other side of the employer. What can protect the press in the interest of the general public not only for the Prez's own sake but in the interests of the continuation of a democratic form of government. Some British observers have been saying that they have changed their mind and feel that precedent is not enough. Something of a basic bill of rights not necessarily the American style but something along those lines is necessary do you agree or disagree. I think that is true what happened in the fight about whether you should allow close shop in journalism we had this big fight my book is really describing how Michael Foot was then the secretary of state for employment and he was insisting we must allow a closed shop no exceptions absolutely not closed shops must be allowed. This is what Labor stands for. And we organized a great campaign against it and little by little we had to admit the press was not like other industries they popped at the end of his bill an extra little
piece which said that there must be a press charter and Bill said today which is not an act it's been today feted by parliament through a lead in the jar to a lot of pressure from Mr. Foote. He says this Act says that if possible the publishers and the editors and the journalists representatives should get together around the table and agree they would all behave. Then they wouldn't exploit them and they would respect truth they wouldn't distort the news all this kind of people of course it means different. Truth means different things different people. So it wasn't a very satisfactory thing but it was intended to make quite sure that nobody would exploit that power by having a monopoly and insisting that that lie and should therefore be imposed. And when they got round these people got around the table they couldn't agree and that was found Elvis and even Mr foetid had to admit that to him it was quite possible they wouldn't agree. So he put in his bill that if they couldn't be in agreement then the government must draft its then press charter at the moment the present situation in Britain is that we are waiting to hear what the new of Mr. Foote
success of the present secretary of state for employment Mr. Albert booth will lay before Parliament as a press charter to me that is very unsatisfactory I don't think that's the way to do it I don't think the government should decide what is press freedom and laid down in that form. But I do think we may have to get parliament to legislate in one way or another and I and that I mean I'm not sufficient of an expert to have a view yes or no but I think a bill of rights why doesn't just press freedom may be something Britain is going to need in the AS ahead. Well when we refer to a Bill of Rights were referred to speed of speech press assembly petition and so on. Once you start on this rights guaranteed the press would I would actively have to investigate what the other components of it are and to see how much of this is actually already embedded in British precedent now speaking to you before the program. You don't feel that there is much precedent to protect press freedom that came as a little surprise to me I thought that
British journalists could look back and say that we can claim the protections because of the growth of our industry and the creativity of it over the years but you don't think the courts would pay much attention to that. I think yeah. We haven't had an altogether happy experience of press freedom in the courts there are a great many laws in Britain and you have security laws do you know just laws. Yes of every kind you astray in many many ways another strange act but not one single one to protect and that is what we have got accustomed to but over the last few Yeahs we've had an increasing collectivization of you by who should not use the word in British law that is to say the trade unions groups collectives have a quad more PA and this is beginning to be established as a precedent and it had Britain's chess changed a great deal of our social system has changed enormously as you know if you visited Britain never the ASM and said
that I think we can't rely on precedent any more things are changing rapidly and there is a tendency towards believing it's easier to let the union publishes you sad much for that have a close friend know who I'm dealing with between us and then we can make deals and you know to hell with the outside public I mean the readers in that way don't worry about them let's get a get together and fix things. And they're all management which actively actively support a closed shop and prefer to deal just with one union. Another guest on this program wins a classic British observer said that one of the problems that the press had to face was that since the war with different governments conservative governments Labor governments and so on. There's been the growth of such an administrative state. Your parliament passes laws on everything all the time he said I'm paraphrasing if you know that one can't keep up with it. So one has to get underneath that veneer of constant activity to see what the rights are you would agree with. I do intend to create I think it is it's very difficult and I very reluctant
to be positive about the kind of protection on this question of the National Union of Journalists and the effort of a single union to impose its control. I have said and I have recently written a large article in The London Times. Perhaps we should perhaps or should I have written this which simply said that which is up to the journalists themselves in particular the well known ones in London right in the national newspapers to withdraw from this union to show they won't accept it because they can't be penalized or victimized than necessary and the publishers will insist and the public will insist on reading when they expect when they can come on television they can defend themselves in many kinds of ways. It's the young one to starting a profession who are intimidated in tow they better join or else and that we can't do anything about it until the people take it as a people in journalism take the lead and I hope they will and and refuse to be regimented in this way and I think increasing number of us all. I myself have done that.
I'm going to change the subject just a little bit. Recently I'm going to use that phrase. There have been serious clashes between what is called a extreme right wing group some of the newspapers referred to the National Front as fair share and so on and so I'm not going to characterize it in any way but I'm saying the press does does give it a character of extreme right wing and it's been opposed by the socialist labor party is it. The press calls it the extreme left wing. And in south London and in Birmingham there have been serious clashes with people objecting to the alleged racial pronouncements and propaganda of the National Front. On a left right basis leaving that. Political clash which is obvious there. How well does the press cover the basic story which is race relations and community relations is it prepared to handle the changing social
situation which in Britain looks increasingly like it has in the United States. It's a difficult subject and different newspapers treat it in different ways and I wouldn't like to give you a general answer in that. All I can say with some pride speaking as a journalist is the press has done a great job better than television and I think television has exacerbated race hate and race prejudice. How. And because it always brings the two extremes together and shows them in the exciting dramatic emotional moments and people have. Who normally would exercise self-restraint and feel certain good behavior is expected often feel released and when they see this kind of thing by example they would never have heard of the National Front tiddly organization talk about is there some great thing that conservative party or Labor Party National is nothing it's a publicity tiny little group it wants but it wants it wants to make itself make it may make a nice mix of head and what one of the NUJ branches tried to do was to tell it off.
You can't approve this wicked thing because it's fascist and right wing. So your instructions from your you know clean union your directive should be to refuse to write about it or if you write about it write very critically Alright very briefly. Well I do have to do that very much indeed because the issue we were talking about before there anybody tells that yeah I want to do it but I what I'm saying is that it respected and self-respecting journalist should go to not only to report the meeting but also to find out who the people are what they stand for where the money is coming from how the organization is being put together what effect it's had on race relations well and on the piece essential piece and how it fits in with British tradition that can all be done by right it can't be done on television you can just see the clashes and the coalitions and the fights and the rallies and that's it. Then you have to move something else you're going to get off when you said television speaking you know. Outside observer there are three major television stations in the Greater London area
just talking about where we are now. Yes two of them are the governments. Would YOU WOULD YOU can you say that about BBC and sitting here you've even seen. Well at least they are the public. Yes let me put I don't think I've got no i stand OK. They're very much like public broadcasting at home except much more heavily subsidized through license fees which we don't have at home and there is there is a feeling that aunty the two of the three television stations is more directly connected with with public life than advertising. But if you if you castigate My point was if you care to go to television then public bodies ought to look into. If you are correct why. Well I to it's of no use. Reasonable in nature it's the nature of the medium is the nature of the medium it makes a good program and during the peak hours they don't want to study boring social realities and analysis of difficult questions you think great things with you and I think it has a very detailed fact. I mean
the point about the BBC is that it is publicly subsidized but it's in competition against something which is called the TV which is commercially backed by advertising and the public has to make up its mind all the time do we want to go on paying for BBC and we pay our taxes I mean we pay a tax on a radio or television. You get some admirable products Well yes but everybody every every member of the public has to think for themselves do we want to put this money in or do we want to get it for free and watch commercials which is what the Americans mostly do except on the education program. And most people would be inclined to say well imagine played a few commercials and have to pay for it the idea is you get something for nothing. And the BBC therefore is up against not losing its its ordinance and if it was much more serious and tried to deal with things in a serious way while the other characters themselves get really beat up and got more drama and more passion fighting and what you know what it's like you've got it running on television this is a big thing and everybody puts that on rather than the boring speech by some. They On the other side say that
you know he said and I think it's in the nature of television and I think the president is very big I get angry when people say oh well you get new newspapers anymore because of television on the contrary because people are more aware of what's happening outside their own household. They need newspapers where the journalist can really again find out what's not just the appearances but what really is happening. Suppose I go with that phrase of yours beyond the household of the Royal Commission on the press which has its report its report very recently June basic investigation said the coverage by the British news press particular newsprint press Australasia Latin America Africa is very poor now is very poor at home. So I'm not making it quite OK with a better story. AS AN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT You know how bad it is. You sometimes read a good paper and get better reports but most papers are pretty poor. Can anything be done about that or is that just as the publisher as a matter of costs. We
can't do it it's too expensive. No it's not to do it cos I think that is absolute nonsense because like you say you too I know they say that the cost of editorial side of a newspaper if you look at the other kinds of costs of production is absolutely tiddlywinks and it's very objective when they say they do they make that the excuse. But the real reason is a different one and it's a very serious one and I've told The Observer as you've said most of my adult life and I've seen this agonizing fight going on and being lost. But we have to stay in competition and in the business of newspaper publishing we have to attract advertising we have to keep up speculation. We have to make sure that our paper is entertaining and you're suggesting that there isn't an audience for that kind of that you know what it is as a very serious audience and that that is an audience of people who care a great deal and who bitterly regret the great days when the paper was much more consent but it is a minority and I believe in Multan society it's perfect it possible to arrange for a vast choice of newspaper said
some papers can be like the old observer used to be and be very serious about what's going on in the world and others can be very trivial very good on fashion or very good on sports or specializing or want to have a thing or a lighthearted or pulp or salacious I mean abjection I'm not. I don't object to other people having that kind of stands if that's what they want but it's objectionable to me that is to be imposed on everybody and the reason for that is the costs of producing newspapers have become so huge of course they're high and that is not necessary because in the world in which we live thanks to obvious inventors and new technology you can in fact produce newspapers very cheaply you have an article coming out in the encounter on this which I have read. Prove it which you point out that the British press could do could do well to use a lot of modern equipment and machinery that is already well established in other countries especially the United States due to the old antique methods which are so
revered for production only talking about production. Yes well I mean that is the point I mean we don't even need a huge with some of the papers about quite new plans we've got quite a surplus of capacity. But the point is that we've got this absurd system of each newspaper having its own production plans and therefore if there is any modern technology trying to try and get a reduction in manpower by negotiating with the union. To which the union simply say to the management Well all right if you don't pass what we want and we show just that. We should just withdraw labor and then the management is terrified that the rivals will get that rate as they get into a panic and given and given and given and given and the thoughts become madly ever manned and wasteful. And this makes the papers very costly and the Americans got over it you know by having monopolies in areas so that the paper which does succeed which touts triumph in the Washington Post or The New York Times can take on the unions but if you've got lots and lots of papers competing against each other they just have to accept what the unions tell
them. But I remember we went through the great union battle did we not in the fifties and early sixties over these issues they are only know put behind us just a little bit. But they were X terrible behind you then they got overcome them by stabbing the open as in nearly every city there is no challenge so your point is that the evil that was created was as big as the one that was. Well that's pretty objectionable I hope that doesn't have to happen in Britain I hope we can have a choice I hope we can get up in the morning and choose which newspaper we want to read. Well one thing I've noticed is that talking to British journalists that there is much hope because they are a very lively energetic breed of people and I want to thank you Nora. One of the most distinguished. This is Bernard broadcasting from the British broadcasting studios in London saying good night. WGBH radio in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic
communications of the School of Communications at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. This program was produced in the studios of WGBH Boston.
Series
The First Amendment
Episode
From London: Nora Beloff
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-28nck39v
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-28nck39v).
Description
Series Description
"The First Amendment is a weekly talk show hosted by Dr. Bernard Rubin, the director of the Institute for Democratic Communication at Boston University. Each episode features a conversation that examines civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. "
Created Date
1977-08-25
Genres
Talk Show
Topics
Social Issues
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:28:59
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 77-0165-10-21-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “The First Amendment; From London: Nora Beloff,” 1977-08-25, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-28nck39v.
MLA: “The First Amendment; From London: Nora Beloff.” 1977-08-25. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-28nck39v>.
APA: The First Amendment; From London: Nora Beloff. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-28nck39v