Dialogue: Play-safe channels leave us with little choice

By MICHAEL GIFFORD*

The Prime Minister is right up, to a point. There is little worth watching on television, whether it be arts and culture programmes, political and current events commentaries and debates, or the populist shows which dominate our screens.

The Herald is right, up to a point. There are too few good local programmes of any sort on offer to stimulate and entertain the viewer.

And Jane Wrightson, chief executive of Spada, is right, too, when she says: "What I care about is that the Government has a decent broadcasting policy and that's what they've promised to deliver." (Spada represents screen producers and directors.)

But there is another problem which also needs addressing - programming. The paranoia of both TVNZ and TV3 over competition has led to a stifling of originality or innovation. Too often, similar-style programmes are on at the same time. This is not in the public interest, and TV schedules must be reorganised to satisfy the needs of viewers rather than those of advertisers and ratings.

In particular, why do the evening news bulletins both have to be at 6 pm?

When TV3 introduced an hour-long news programme, why did TVNZ follow suit? It obviously feared that TV3 might get a jump and attract more viewers.

It claimed at the time that the move was in the interests of providing a better news service, but who would buy that argument? How can I evaluate which news service better suits my needs if both are on at the same time?

And both follow the same pattern - market reports at about 6.30, sports at 6.40 and the weather at 6.50. There is no originality at all.

I either have to watch one channel or, with increasing frustration, switch throughout the hour. Even the advertising breaks tend to coincide.

Both networks seem terrified that the other channel might, in fact, present the news better. "We must be in direct competition with them" seems to be the philosophy. "Viewers cannot be allowed to watch both news services. They must choose between us."

So it's either Judy and Richard or John and Carol; Simon and Angela or Darren. Heaven forbid that viewers could watch and compare the rival presentations.

Is any network prepared to take a risk and get out of its 6 pm comfort zone?

Will any network present a half-hour, commercial-free bulletin at 7 pm?

Is any network prepared to be innovative and change its format. Let's get the weather out of the way first, for example - and introduce more positive news and fewer disaster stories.

We need to know the bad, but the graphic and gory details and intrusion into the lives of the suffering make for a maudlin start to each evening.

Research from the University of Maryland indicates that a good laugh may protect your heart, a fact which our news compilers should remember.

So will one of our networks risk presenting more good news and making us laugh a little? It would do wonders for the national psyche.

This fear of competition is also evident in the timing of TV3's 20/20 and TVNZ's 60 Minutes. There are 168 hours available a week to screen these programmes. Why are they both on at 7.30 pm on Sunday? Certainly not to satisfy viewers who may wish to watch both. The networks force viewers to choose one or the other, or channel hop.

Has either network the courage to reschedule its programme to a time not in direct competition with the other? No doubt commercial reasons would be given for maintaining the status quo. But until I have seen that either programme would suffer from standing against soaps, quiz shows or sports, I will not accept that as an excuse.

When it comes to drama and movies on a Sunday night, it is the same story. At 8.30 pm, TVNZ must pit a blockbuster movie on 2 against a blockbuster movie or mini-series on TV3. And this is without even considering the merits of the Sunday Theatre offering.

It could be that all three channels present worthwhile entertainment at this time. But viewers must choose.

Surely it is possible to start a movie on 2 at 7.30 pm, for example, and one on TV3 at 9.30 pm. But neither network will take the risk.

It has even been known for one or the other to change its schedule and deliberately pit a popular movie against the other channel's advertised movie. As usual, the wishes of viewers are the last to be considered.

Some years ago, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Auckland Philharmonia played the same symphony on successive nights. This may have been fine for concert-goers who wished to compare the merits of the respective performances. But from a programming point of view, it was ludicrous. Discussion and cooperation between the two orchestras was obviously non-existent.

So it is with our TV programmers. Who in their right mind would programme Neighbours from Hell (TV One, 7.30 pm) and World's Nastiest Neighbours (TV 2, 8.30 pm) on the same evening? Who would watch these programmes anyway? And how often do TV critics bemoan the fact that the best movies are screened in the middle of the night?

The debate over the Prime Minister's comments is timely. There are many issues at stake here, and it is up to the Government, the heads of our rival networks, the producers, directors and writers of New Zealand programmes, and the public to work together to make television a medium in which both the highest standards and real variety and choice for the viewer are prime considerations.

* Michael Gifford is an Auckland educational and travel consultant.