Fiji should have TV ('but

not the commercial kind')

From a Suva correspondent It took more than 12 months to come to light, but Mr.

Humphrey Fisher’s television feasibility survey and report on the future of Fiji radio was finally tabled on the second last day of the December Legislative Council session.

The progressive Mr. Fisher—he proved to be on the “with it” side during his term as BBC representa tive in Australia—spent a regret tably brief 11 days in Fiji during September, 1967.

But it was enough time for him to produce a 24-page report, in which he recommended that tele vision, using English as the basic language, be introduced to Fiji; that plans to do so should not interfere with the immediate development of a first-class radio system; that the television service should not be a commercial concern; and that educational television should not be the prime reason for introducing the medium.

Save a vast sum, but...

He emphasised that a “decision to proceed” must be taken before any overseas experts were called in for further investigation. Once this decision was made, it would pro bably take three years before a TV service actually started.

Although commercial develop ment of TV “would save the colony a vast sum, it would not be in the best interests of the colony,” he said. He recommended that the Fiji Broacasting Commission should be entrusted with the task.

He argued that a commercial tele vision service would be mounted on a pinch-penny scale; that expansion to the less remunerative areas would be slower; equipment might not be of the highest and most expensive quality; that the prime consideration would be profit, not public service; and that the FBC would probably suffer damage in terms of ratings and revenue.

If, however, a commercial opera tion was decided upon, Mr Fisher advised that terms of reference should be devised, specifying Fiji’s requirements as to technical stan dards, advertising standards and limitations and, above all, the quality of programmes.

In the event of a commercial operation, a contract of the kind and severity used in Rhodesia should be drawn. The responsibility of overseeing the operaton of such a contract—and therefore of super vising in general terms the com mercial concern—should lie with the

Fbc.

It would cost between 5F500,000 -$600,000 to establish a TV sta tion, he said, but added that an initial coverage of up to 75 per cent, of the population could be achieved with comparative ease.

“It seems inevitabe to me that television will come to Fiji before too many years have elapsed—if not through popular demand, then through the inexorable processes of time,” observed Mr. Fisher. “If this is so, it seems better to me that it should be introduced while the political life of the country is ordered and while this new medium could be established on a firm and sensible basis.

“For these reasons I tend to think that television should be introduced with reasonable celerity so far as finance permits.”

In terms of priorities, Mr. Fisher stressed that the need for a first class radio coverage was more immediate than the need for TV.

He commented that the overall image of the FBC’s output lacked “pres ence, vitality, force”, due to lifeless programming and methods of pre sentation which “lacked the friend liness that radio should have”. (In fairness to the FBC, it should be noted that Mr. Fisher’s observa tions were made 15 months ago and that determined efforts have been made to project “personality” into the air-waves since then.) Mr. Fisher’s recommendations re lating to radio included: • Reinforcing the FBC’s inde pendence by amending the Broad casting Ordinance where it refers to the obligation to broadcast, or not broadcast, certain information at

the order of the government, (An interesting suggestion, in view of the government’s concern last July over the FBC’s refusal to broad cast a series of government re leases while the by-elections were on.) • Commissioning a survey of audience potentials and characteris tics and of the effectiveness of FBC output. • Establishing two medium-wave networks. • Making Network 1 a multi racial “pop music” programme, run ning without interruption through out the day; and making Network 2 a channel for broadcasts in the three main languages. • Opening regional studios, start ing at Lautoka. • Providing additional spending capacity to enable the FBC to develop as it should—keeping in mind the limit to which the com munity could and would pay for its radio services.

Mr. Fisher envisaged Network 1 —the network now devoted to Eng lish language programmes—as hav ing “a staple and almost exclusive diet of popular music . . . heavily weighted towards Western ‘pop’ music but including the generally acceptable forms of Indian, Fijian and South Pacific popular music”.

In the Legislative Council, the Acting Chief Secretary, Mr. H.

Halstead, said that as a result of the report a committee of local people, probably under the chairmanship of an overseas expert, would be appointed in the near future to examine broadcasting.

One wonders how those who con sider that the FBC already places too much emphasis on “pop” music will feel about Mr. Fisher’s Network 1 suggestion.

In the July session of Legco, Mr.

W. M. Barrett claimed that “eternal pop music is a tragic misuse of the opportunity radio provides in Fiji to build one people, one nation and democracy”.

Progress, of course, means many things to many people. . .