TELEVISION is making politics history. For, thanks to ITV, this is the first general election in which it is playing a major role.

The story of the campaign is being chronicled day by day in the news bulletins. Special programmes are being shown, which not only bring viewers face to face with the arguments and the personalities but also show how an election works and so help stimulate public interest.

What effect is all this having on voters? To what extent will people be influenced by what they have heard and seen over their TV sets when they go to the polls on October 8?

These are highly-important questions. The answers are eagerly awaited by the leaders of the political parties, for whom television is still something of an unknown factor, and by the TV executives, who are responsible for the special programmes that are being televised during the period of the election.

To find these answers – and find them quickly – a team of research workers who are making a special survey of TV and the election have called in the help of an electronic brain which they have named Lucifer.

This giant – £100,000-worth of winking lights, whirring wheels and miles of multi-coloured wires which link its thousands of brain cells – can work out in hours a mass of complicated statistics that would otherwise take a lifetime to compile.

Head of the survey is Joseph Trenaman, who recently took up the newly-created post of Granada Television Fellow at Leeds University after a mammoth four year task at Oxford analysing viewing habits for the Nuffield Foundation.

He told me: “Television is obviously having a greater effect on the voter than ever before. At the last general election, only 40 per cent of the population had a TV set. Now the figure is 70 per cent.

“Our purpose in the survey that is now under way is to discover how far the political broadcasts help and influence a person’s decision to vote and the way he votes. We want to find out what opinions they have of the political leaders they see talking to them from their TV screens.

“And, to learn how effective television is in putting over the Party line, we want to find out what people know and understand of the election issues.”

The survey, which is intended to show the effectiveness of TV electioneering in a general sense, is in fact being conducted in two Yorkshire constituencies. One is West Leeds; the other, Pudsey.

They have not been picked merely because of their nearness to Leeds University, headquarters of the survey. Said Joseph Trenaman: “There are several very good reasons why we chose them. For one thing, we wanted constituencies where there is a very close fight, which means a great deal of local political activity.

“In both constituencies the majority in previous elections has been about 5,000, with electorates of between 50,000 and 60,000. One had a Labour majority; the other a Conservative majority. And in both cases there are also Liberal candidates.

“Another reason is that at the last general election the proportion of the votes for the main parties in the two constituencies was roughly the same as in the national figure.”

One thousand people are being questioned during the survey. Their names are taken from the electoral register – one name is picked out of every 125 in the list – and each is the subject of a 15-minute interview. From each set of answers up to 40 independent facts are taken for feeding fito the electronic brain.

To see the brain in action I called on Dr A. S. Douglas, director of Leeds University electronic computing laboratory.

I found him in an old black-stone building with a high vaulted ceiling that was once a Baptist chapel. Sunlight filtered through the windows, only to be overpowered by batteries of fluorescent lamps that lit up the austere laboratory.

Where once stood rows of pews, now squatted steel-grey cabinets containing the brain’s intricate memory patterns. To a perpetual humming sound, green pinpoints of light flashed on the face of monitor screens on the control desk as reel after reel of punched tape were fed into the machine.

When the survey is over there will be more than 40,000 facts to be “swallowed” by the brain, converted into electrical charges and then to travel along the fine tracery of wires to be digested, analysed, compared and rejected … and finally produce masses of widely-assorted facts about TV and the election.

But the brain is not only being used to sort out the answers. It sets the questions, too!

Said Joseph Trenaman: “In fact, we could not have done without it. We started off with a preliminary survey to find out what questions we ought to ask. Instead of sitting in our office and thinking up what we regarded as the right questions, we invited groups of people – as many as 60 at a time – to watch telerecordings of party political broadcasts, and talked to them afterwards.

“What we learned was fed into the machine – and then it was left to work out the most acceptable questions.

“The brain works at the rate of 1,000 operations a minute, and it took just an hour to give us the list of questions. Without its help, we would not have been ready in time and this survey, which we think as of tremendous importance, would never have taken place.”

The post Lucifer throws a light on TV electioneering appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

A FIRST REPORT

on Constituency Television in a General Election

Granada’s Election Marathon was an experiment.

Its aim was to give every voter in Granada’s Northern region the chance to see and hear, in his own home, all the candidates for his constituency.

Marathon presented 229 parliamentary candidates contesting 100 Northern constituencies. Many thousands of the electors in those 100 constituences never saw any of their candidates except in Marathon. For the candidates it was an opportunity to speak directly to the electors whose votes they were seeking, and to reply to points made by their opponents, who appeared with them. Of the 229 candidates taking part, 98 were Conservative, 100 Labour, 25 Liberal, 3 were Welsh Nationalists, 2 Communists and 1 Lancastrian; for the minority candidates, it was a rare opportunity of equality in political broadcasting.

Here is the story of this unprecedented experiment in constituency television.

The post Election Marathon: an introduction appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

1. There are programmes for which the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, with the programme companies, are responsible: these are such programmes as the BBC’s Who Goes Home? or The Week in Westminster and ATV’s Free Speech, and, of course, the routine news coverage of party conferences and other political events.
2. There are the “party political broadcasts” for which the political parties themselves are responsible, both during and between elections, in time allocated by agreement between them and the broadcasting authorities.

No British election has ever been covered so fully on television as the General Election of 1959. Television itself had grown enormously since the last election, in 1955. In that year, only million TV sets were in use in Britain: by 1959 there were 9 million sets, some two-thirds of the adult population were fairly frequent viewers, and it was said that, in a single TV appearance, a party leader could speak directly to more of the electors than Gladstone could have in the whole of his life. So potent and widespread a means of access to the electorate could not be ignored by the politicians; for some time before the 1959 election both the major parties — and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals — were preparing to use it more extensively than ever before.

But it was not only the party political broadcasts that were more numerous during this election. The biggest change from previous practice was in the BBC and ITA programmes. During earlier elections there had been a complete shut-down on political discussion and comment in BBC programmes. (Independent television did not begin until after the 1955 election.) Only in the “party politicals” were the election issues set before viewers and listeners — and, since each party separately presented its own case or attacked its opponents, there was no real clash.

This muted handling of a major event in the life of a democratic nation no longer seemed necessary or reasonable in 1959. Millions of viewers who had got used to watching serious TV discussions, young people who knew little about politics, “floating voters” — all were entitled to expect a full and independent coverage of the Election, with fairly balanced but free argument.

Already there had been some cautious relaxation of the strict rules that governed political broadcasting, even between elections. The “14-day rule” — under which nothing could be discussed on TV or radio if it was to be debated in Parliament in the coming fortnight — was dropped. The most important advance, however, was the coverage by Granada TV of the Rochdale by-election in February, 1958. This experiment was agreed to by the parties with some misgivings, and they watched it anxiously. Whether or not it contributed to the remarkably high poll (80.19 per cent.), the general verdict was that it had helped to stimulate public awareness of what was going on. Had the Rochdale experiment failed, it seems likely that there would have been less TV during the General Election itself.

The post Election Marathon: background to an idea appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

Granada had already begun to think about the type of programmes it would propose. Two weeks earlier, on March 5th, the general idea of Marathon had been tentatively discussed. (The date is important, for Granada’s intentions in putting forward the idea were later misrepresented.)

By March 18th the constituencies technically in the Granada Northern region had been defined. After some deliberation it was decided to propose this scheme to all constituencies in Granada’s primary- and secondary-signal areas except where a secondary-area constituency overlapped with the primary area of another programme company, then the constituency would be excluded.

Granada arranged interviews at the various party headquarters so that all the proposals for election programmes might be presented. These interviews took place on April 2nd. Granada representatives went to the headquarters of the three parties in London; the ITA were also kept informed. The Election Marathon was proposed in this form:

Candidates will appear constituency by constituency and each candidate will make a brief election address without debate or discussion. There will be four minutes for each candidate and Marathon will be broadcast continuously for five days from noon to 4 p.m., a total of 24 hours’ broadcasting time.

At the Liberal Party headquarters the Liberal Press Officer, Miss Phyllis Preston, raised no objections. She said she would refer the proposals to the Liberal Campaign Committee.

At the Labour Party headquarters the Granada producers met Mr. Morgan Phillips, the Labour Party Secretary. He accepted Marathon. His only doubts were: Could Granada organise it, and would the Conservative Party agree? At by-elections about this time at East Harrow, South-West Norfolk, and Galloway the Conservative candidates had refused to appear on television and so, under the law, their opponents had been barred from appearing.

The answer to the second of these questions was learned by other Granada executives simultaneously visiting the Conservative Party headquarters across from Transport House in Smith Square. The Conservative representatives did not commit the party. Their view was that they must consult the Party Chairman, Lord Hailsham, but they thought the idea “imaginative” and their questions were not on points of principle.

They raised one legal point. They wondered how Granada press advertisements of candidates to appear in Marathon would be affected by the limitation of candidates’ election expenses in the Representation of the People Act. The feeling was that an advertisement naming no candidates but referring to all of them would not be a breach of the Act.

Granada now released its proposals to the Press.

First Press Reactions

Marathon interested the newspapers.

“Granada offers TV Election” said the News Chronicle headline.

“Election TV Surprise” said the Daily Mirror (the reporter called the Marathon proposals “revolutionary”).

The Daily Mail reported that party legal experts would study the proposals and added: “Party chiefs are hoping they will give the go-ahead to this history-making scheme — individual candidates have never before been screened in an election.”

The Times political correspondent observed: “Granada, from the beginning the most politically conscious and sociologically experimental of television producers, have certainly set a hot pace to other programme companies and the BBC by making these proposals. . . .  The first reaction of rank and file politicians will be of gratitude, but the party headquarters will have their moments when they will look the gift horse sourly in the mouth”. However he entered one caveat on behalf of viewers: “Twenty-four hours of solid local television hustings, often featuring candidates with no skill in the art, and sometimes candidates who are not particularly articulate, is an awesome prospect”. (As it turned out, no candidate was, in fact, stuck for words.)

The Sunday Dispatch complained that Marathon was too fair: “That benevolent Socialist Mr. Sidney Bernstein who runs Granada TV is prepared to be fair to the point of idiocy. Every candidate in his area will get equal treatment. What nonsense this is!”

The Yorkshire Post political correspondent said: “These proposals will alleviate the fears of many MPs without television experience that they would not be given a fair crack of the whip”. The Yorkshire Post also reported that Mr. Donald Kaberry, MP for NW Leeds and Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, “liked very much the idea of a straight speech by candidates within a limited period” — apparently because of the difficulties of achieving proper balance otherwise.

In fact, straight speeches alone were not to prove possible under the Television Act.

The Hand of the Law

For Marathon’s proposals now precipitated a complex debate in press and Parliament on television and the election law.

Even politicians cannot break the laws which they have helped to make.

Whatever arrangements were made for broadcasting the 1959 election had to be legal, and clearly seen to be legal, under two Acts of Parliament: the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which ensures fair play for all candidates, and the Television Act, 1954, which governs independent television.

The proposal that the Election Marathon should consist of a series of direct election addresses by each candidate in turn was at first felt by Granada to be not inconsistent with section 3 of the Television Act, which lays it down that, apart from party political broadcasts, all political broadcasts are to be in the form of “properly balanced discussions or debates”. After further consideration, however, and on advice from several quarters, it was decided to change the series of addresses into short debates between candidates.

More complex was the interpretation of section 63 of the Representation of the People Act. The problem can be stated thus:

1. Should a candidate appearing on television have to include the cost of his appearance in his election expenses? These expenses are strictly limited by the Representation of the People Act, on pain of disqualification. Obviously, if a candidate had to include the expense it would severely affect his ability and willingness to appear on television.
2. On the other hand, if the broadcasting authority pays for the cost of the programme, would the authority be liable for prosecution for promoting or procuring the candidate’s election? The Act says that apart from the agent or candidate or persons authorised by him, it is a corrupt practice for anyone to present the candidate or his views to the electors. Newspapers are specifically exempted from this ban. But the Act was passed in 1949, and television is not mentioned in it.

Granada’s own view was that since it was proposing equal time for all candidates in a constituency it could hardly be said to be promoting the election of any one of them. It was on this agreed reasoning that Granada had been able to broadcast the Rochdale by-election programmes a year before.

Mr. Morgan Phillips agreed that Marathon was legal. The Daily Mail, on April 4th, reported him saying: “We welcome the Granada plan; it is a very good idea. There is nothing illegal about it provided there is equal representation of candidates.”

A Conservative party spokesman was quoted: “From our point of view one thing is quite definite: it is up to individual candidates to decide whether they want to go on TV. If a particular candidate decided against it I cannot see how his opponent — even if wishing to do so — could take part.”

But the Mail also reported that “some leading politicians” were against the idea. The ITA comment, reported in the Mail, was: “Consultations will take place before the full implications of these rather dramatic proposals are known.”

In the next few weeks the air was heavy with legal opinions. Five days after the Marathon proposals were made public, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke QC MP published a trenchant legal analysis in the Daily Telegraph of April 8th.

Yes, said Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, Granada’s Election Marathon was legal, but it was the only proposed election programme that was. The BBC’s plan to screen “selected” candidates was illegal, said Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.

Even party political broadcasts were illegal, said Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, unless any company giving 10 minutes to a Minister gave exactly the same time to all the other candidates in his constituency “however crack-pot, however obscure.”

Why? Because, said Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, if only one candidate in any constituency were given screen-time the broadcasting authority would be preferring his election in that constituency and thereby guilty of a corrupt practice. It did not matter that the authority was giving equal time to an opposing candidate from another constituency. British law did not recognise parties, only individuals and constituencies.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke suggested that Granada had really “blown the gaff” about the March 18th agreement between the parties, the ITA, and the BBC, to screen regional election programmes.

Granada, said Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, had seen the illegality of the BBC proposal to screen “selected” candidates, announced at the time of the new agreement, and had then decided not to “play along”. By proposing to screen every candidate, Granada, he said, had spotlighted the legal flaw in the plans of the BBC and other programme companies.

In fact, as has been emphasised, Marathon had first been thought of on March 5th, two weeks before the BBC announced its plan to televise selected candidates. Granada had not devised Marathon with the intention of embarrassing anybody. (That it had was a rumour to which the Daily Mail also gave currency: it reported that BBC and Independent programme-company heads were “very bitter about this Bernstein bombshell”. The only quote reported from the BBC was: “No comment”.)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke’s opinion made front-page headlines.

The Daily Mail said that both Crown and BBC lawyers had now ruled the BBC programmes with selected candidates a breach of the electoral law. All candidates must be given equal time. The Mail added that a Speaker’s Conference to revise the law was possible.

“TV Election Tangle probed by Cabinet”, said the Daily Mirror headline.

“New Law for Election TV?” said the News Chronicle.

The Daily Telegraph political correspondent declared that Marathon did not comply with the law: “The problem cannot be solved by ensuring that all the candidates in a constituency are given equal time on television. On a meticulous view of the law each would still be liable for a share of the expenses involved.”

The Daily Telegraph, like other newspapers, reported that back-bench MPs thought legislation was needed before the election to safeguard the position of candidates invited to appear on Marathon. The opinion, it seemed, was that the exemption accorded to newspapers in the Representation of the People Act should be extended to television.

The Daily Telegraph political correspondent hinted that the party leaders “may agree on a policy of masterly inactivity leaving it to some aggrieved candidate to raise a test case and thus obtain a judicial interpretation of the Act”.

The Manchester Guardian was tart about the fuss. The confusion over the rights of television companies had now reached “absurd proportions”. A test case would “let the politicians off too lightly”. The Guardian urged rebellion: “One would like to see the two television authorities stand on the letter of the law and refuse all part in the election until the law is amended to secure for them the full freedom of reporting enjoyed by newspapers.”

The Daily Mirror agreed: “How ridiculous!” In a belligerent editorial headlined “This Muddle is Dangerous”, the Mirror said “It is vital that TV should be given fair elbow room to report elections. These muddles should be straightened out — now. The law must be brought up to date — now”. The Mirror also made this point: “Candidates do not have to pay for newspaper reports of their speeches. Why should they have to pay for television appearances?”

The Times political correspondent referred to the Act’s “extraordinary oversight” on the position of television. But the party leaders, he said, did not think that there was enough confusion to make radical rationalisation necessary.

Two days later the newspapers reported that the problem had indeed been shelved. The parties, they said, had agreed not to bring test legal actions against each other. The Daily Telegraph summed up: “The attitude of both parties is that there is a case for revising the 1949 Act, especially on the question of expenses, but that it should be left for the next Parliament to tackle”.

This, however, did not clear the way for Marathon in the forthcoming election. The BBC, too, announced that it was revising its plans. It would not screen the “selected” candidates as candidates from individual constituencies. It would screen them as regional spokesmen for the party.

The Manchester Guardian was scornful of this solution. In a biting editorial on April 18th, headlined “TV in Chains”, the Guardian said: “When is a candidate not a candidate? The answer we are now asked to believe is: when he appears in a BBC election broadcast. This prize bit of humbug is the latest attempt to find a way out of the stranglehold of our archaic election laws…. This solution does not overcome the other impediment to free television reporting; the right of the parties to veto programmes is kept intact”.

On the same day, in Parliament, Mr. R. A. Butler said: “There is nothing more abstruse, except medieval theology, than the general rules covering political broadcasts”.

In a confused situation, Granada made its own position clear on April 20th by saying: “We have had no objection to the scheme from the three main political parties or from the ITA and as far as we know no-one else has raised any serious objection”.

The issue was given a final airing in the Commons on April 24th. Doubts about the legal position were expressed by Mr. Gaitskell, and Mr. Shinwell asked for an inquiry. Mr. Butler replied that the ITA was taking legal advice on Marathon. Until the ITA view, based on legal advice, was received, “we cannot make any progress on that”. He added: “But it would be right for me to keep in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and with members, so that if a statement was necessary it could be made to alleviate fears about the possible operation of the Representation of the People Act in relation to these proposals”.

The prospect of a spring election faded. Granada continued to plan for Marathon in a possible autumn election. Their own legal advisers had already said that, in their opinion, Marathon was not a breach of the Representation of the People Act, and could certainly, with some adjustment, be made to conform with the Television Act.

The ITA, however, now told Granada that it seemed doubtful, on preliminary legal advice, whether any programme featuring candidates as such would be legal.

A few weeks later the ITA discovered another snag. The ITA’s legal advice was that the provision of the Television Act on political programmes, other than the set party political broadcasts, must be in the form of “properly balanced discussions or debates” would rule out a series of election addresses as proposed in Marathon, even if a programme in that form could be devised to comply with the Representation of the People Act.

Granada was, of course, prepared to modify Marathon so that it became a series of balanced debates in conformity with the Television Act. But now the parties began to have doubts. Mr. Morgan Phillips wondered how easy it would be to secure balance between, say, three candidates in a short discussion programme. Moreover, there still remained the uncertainties of the Representation of the People Act, and the programme-planners’ problem of screening Marathon in Granada’s permitted hours.

Voice of Authority

At this point it seemed necessary to take independent and authoritative advice. Granada’s own counsel had already advised that, in his opinion. Marathon was not a breach of the Representation of the People Act, and could be made to conform with the Television Act with the slight adjustment suggested by the ITA. But, even though a revised Marathon might not be declared illegal by the ITA or by the parties, there might be a massive reluctance to take part unless Marathon was clearly and indisputably seen to be legal. Candidates of the main parties might still fear that an independent candidate might bring an action to invalidate the result in a constituency in which all the candidates had taken part in Marathon.

Accordingly, on August 11th, Granada invited Sir Ivor Jennings, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, to give an opinion on Marathon’s legality. On August 20th, less than three weeks before the Prime Minister announced the date of the election, Sir Ivor gave his opinion on Marathon. It was favourable.

Marathon, he said, was legal under the Representation of the People Act. He concluded his analysis: “The expenditure incurred in a broadcast by Bill Bloggs, candidate for Loamshire, is not a corrupt practice so long as it is not incurred with a view to (i.e. with the object of) his election for Loamshire. The evidence that it is not so incurred is that John Moggs and Jack Coggs, the other candidates, have also broadcast”.

Sir Ivor recommended that:

1. No candidate should appear on television unless all the other candidates in his constituency are prepared to appear;
2. All such candidates should appear in the same programme, each of them speaking for x minutes in an order determined by lot;
3. Candidates should be instructed that they must speak judiciously about the “issues” of the election which appear to them to be important on the national plane, and must not address their constituents direct; and
4. Granada should make it plain, preferably through the announcer at the beginning of each session, that the candidates are explaining their opinions to viewers generally, because it is just as important to have good back-benchers as it is to have good front-benchers.

On the Television Act, Sir Ivor said Section 3 was not to be interpreted as a legally enforceable set of duties but rather as a code of behaviour.

Thus reassured about the Representation of the People Act, Granada decided to change the form of the Election Marathon to a series of short debates between candidates. This would remove any possibility of contravening the Television Act.

Hardly had this been done, when the Prime Minister announced the Dissolution of Parliament. The revised Election Marathon proposal was speedily approved by the Independent Television Authority. On September 10th it was put before the parties, this time simultaneously to Northern party officials and to the party headquarters in London. All agreed to it.

The legal bogeys had been laid; official approval was secured; and the way was clear for the candidates themselves to accept or reject Granada’s offer.

The post Election Marathon: the idea mooted appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

Dear …,

You have probably read in the newspapers of Granada’s plan to offer all candidates in the North of England a chance to address their electors on television.

This is our invitation to your candidate to take part.

The programme is entitled “The Election Marathon”, and this is how it will work. The length of time on the air for a constituency with three candidates will not be less than six minutes. Candidates will ballot for the order of speaking. When their turn comes to appear on the air the chairman will introduce them — naming the constituency, each candidate and the party he represents. The candidates will then speak in the order of ballot for one minute each. Then the chairman will conduct a short debate in which each candidate will have a chance to deal with any points that the other speakers have raised. Each candidate will have an equal time on the air.

No constituency debate can be included in the programme unless all the nominated candidates agree to appear; it would be infringing the Television Act 1954 to present, say, only two out of three candidates.

We have taken leading legal opinion. We are assured that the Marathon programme does not infringe the terms of the Representation of the People Act.

We will arrange transport to and from the studio. For constituencies west of the Pennines the studio will be at the Granada Television Centre in Manchester. For constituencies east of the Pennines the studio will be in the Granada offices in Leeds.

There are details to be worked out as this is a complex television operation. We will be getting in touch with you again but in the meantime we would be grateful if you could let us know if your candidate will be able to take part. Would you please make a transfer charge telephone call to us at Granada, Manchester, Deansgate 7211, and ask for the Election Desk.

We would be grateful for a quick decision, because it will help us in making our plans.

Yours sincerely,

for GRANADA TV NETWORK LIMITED

By next morning one thing was sure: candidates wanted to appear on Marathon. All that day the four telephone lines to Granada’s Election Desk were ringing continuously, with acceptances in principle. In the morning there was a queue of calls from Nantwich, Bolton, Knutsford, Oldham, Leeds, Keighley, Barrow.

But before Marathon could go on the air all the candidates in a constituency had to accept; all had to agree to the same time and date.

Each candidate accepting was given a provisional time and date for broadcasting. Acceptances were marked on a wall chart of constituencies.

At 10.30 a.m. the first direct refusal came by telephone from Yorkshire. Mr. Paul Bryan, the Conservative candidate for Howden, regretted he could not accept the invitation. This meant that the Labour candidate, who had already accepted, would not be able to appear. Howden was marked off the constituency list. The Labour candidate was informed that Granada could not televise him.

The second refusal came at 12.30 p.m. It was from Mrs. Bessie Braddock who said she was against television appearances. So Liverpool Exchange came off the list, too.

But by this time individual acceptances had built up a strong lead and slowly whole constituencies began to be lined up. The first complete constituency, oddly enough, was Rochdale, where eighteen months earlier Granada had televised the by-election: Mr. Jack McCann (Labour) accepted at noon, then Mr. Tom Normanton, the Conservative, and finally, later in the day, Mr. Ludovic Kennedy for the Liberals.

By 6 p.m. on September 22nd, six days after the invitations had gone out, the candidates in 100 constituencies out of 153 had provisionally accepted.

About half the candidates accepting were also able to agree to the provisional times and dates offered by Granada. For the others new times and dates had to be worked out, and agreed by all of them.

Granada’s operations sheet for a difficult constituency went like this:

10 a.m. The Labour candidate says he cannot accept a Tuesday evening broadcast: he has a meeting a long way off. He suggests Wednesday or Thursday evening.

10.12 a.m. Granada phones the Conservative and Liberal agents, who have already accepted Tuesday. They say they will consult their candidates and ring back in the afternoon. They do.

The Conservative can manage Thursday evening but not the afternoon: he is due at an old people’s tea party. The Liberal agent says the candidate can appear on Wednesday afternoon but he must be away by 4.45 p.m. for another meeting. Can Granada arrange that? Yes, but now the more important question is can the Liberal appear Thursday evening? The agent says he will see.

3.30 p.m. Granada re-checks the Marathon schedule. The constituency can be televised on the Thursday evening if they all agree. Granada rings the Labour candidate. He is out with a canvassing team. A message is left.

3.50 p.m. Now the Liberal candidate rings back. Yes, Thursday evening is all right for him, provided transport can be arranged both ways. It can; he agrees.

4.15 p.m. Granada tries the Labour committee rooms again, but the candidate is not back yet. Five minutes later he is on the telephone. He will be agreeable to re-arranging Thursday evening’s engagements, but he cannot be in the studio until 10.45 p.m.

4.45 p.m. Granada writes to all the parties. The local Granada news correspondent is asked to arrange transport for the Liberal.

So one more constituency is scheduled.

One candidate was unduly optimistic. He wrote: “I understand you pay your usual fee to those taking part in this broadcast”. Granada replied: “We feel we perform a public service in this broadcast and therefore we do not propose a fee”. The candidate then accepted graciously; but, because his opponent refused the invitation, he did not in fact appear.

The final figures were:

In the constituencies some strong things were being said about candidates unable to appear — and about television.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst, Conservative candidate for Shipley, who declined the invitation, was reported in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus to have said that, the whole policy of televising the election had been grossly overdone. In any case, he thought that his own programme was far too busy for him to go careering about adding to the saturation. His Labour opponent retorted that he was “undemocratic”.

The newspapers had already reported the invitations (“350 can climb on the TV Soapbox” was the Daily Herald’s headline). Now the refusals made news.

The Daily Mirror, in a bold editorial headlined “This Gag is Not Funny”, said: “Any one candidate can gag his opponents. This smothering of election politics on TV is insane. TV goes into more than 9 million homes. It should play a vital part in getting everyone steamed up about the General Election…”

The Mirror concluded: “Granada is courageous but hampered by screen-shy candidates. One thing is clear. The winning parly on October 8th must make sure that TV is never gagged like this again”.

There was a rash of Marathon headlines in the local newspapers: “Colonel Refutes Debate Smear” (Manchester Evening Chronicle); “A Socialist Refuses One TV Minute” (Yorkshire Post); “Television Not Our Line, say Local Tories” (Crewe Chronicle); “TV Election Clash at Shipley” (Bradford Telegraph and Argus); “Candidate Sorry Opponent Won’t Join TV Debate” (Sheffield Star).

The Manchester Guardian said that in Bradford Marathon had become “the first issue to disturb a quiet contest”; and the Sunday Dispatch reported a crisp bit of cross-talk from Liverpool Exchange where, it said, Mrs. Braddock’s refusal to appear on Marathon with stockbroker Mr. Tom Beattie-Edwards (Conservative) had livened up a cold election.

The dialogue, said the Sunday Dispatch, went something like this:

Bessie: I have no objection to you going on TV. They can give you an hour for all I care.

Tom: Thanks, I’ll tell Granada.

Bessie: The longer you speak on TV, the less notice they’ll take of you.

Tom: You might get a big shock on October 8th.

Bessie: If we lose Exchange we might as well pack up altogether . . .

(Mr. Edwards did tell Granada about Mrs. Braddock’s willingness to let him appear — but under the law Granada could not screen only one candidate.)

Plain Ties Preferred

In Manchester and Leeds, meanwhile, preparations were pushed ahead for televising candidates who had accepted (now they included Mr. Gaitskell, Labour candidate for Leeds South, who had agreed to appear from Leeds on Marathon despite a full diary: he said he did not want to deprive his opponents of their chance).

At Leeds a Granada office had been converted into a studio and the Travelling Eye units had moved in. The broadcasting times had been confirmed with the candidates and advertisements prepared for the press in every constituency.

The RAC had signposted routes to the studios. Granada had sent every candidate a map and asked its news correspondents on the spot to help if they could.

Since most of the candidates were about to face television cameras for the first time, Granada sent them these hints:

These Notes May Help You

1. What you wear is not of critical importance, but it would help your appearance on television if you wear a blue or light green shirt — which transmit best.
2. Plain ties look better than striped.
3. If you wish, wear your rosettes, but avoid things that shine. Badges and metal pen tops reflect light and do not help your picture.
4. You will be called upon to speak, in the first instance, for one minute, and then, the second time round, you will be given a chance to reply to your rivals for another minute. You might care to work out the points you want to make in your first minute.
5. After you have been speaking for 45 seconds a light, in front of you, will start to flash. This will continue until your minute is up. When this light starts to flash you should wind up your speech so that you are not cut off by the independent chairman. If you finish in under a minute, do not worry — the camera will cut back to the Chairman so that you are not left in mid-air. Your speech will go out as a finished piece, even if you are under the minute.
6. If you are used to talking to large audiences remember that television is a very intimate medium. Big oratorical speeches and gestures are not successful. They often seem pompous. Experts say it is an advantage to try to project your talk to just one person — say a friend sitting at home.
7. There will, as usual, be movement in the studio — technicians working and people moving into place. Ignore all this, for you are on the air. Concentrate on the camera in front of you and nothing else.
8. Where should you train your eyes? Right on the lens at the bottom left of the camera — this is the one that counts . . . RELAX . . . and be yourself.

September 28th was Nomination Day — and Marathon Day. There was only one last-minute crisis: Bolton West and Bolton East were scheduled for Marathon’s first day and last-minute nominations looked likely (Granada’s news correspondents had been asked to advise of any). A Liberal announced his intention of standing in Bolton East against a Conservative, and a Conservative hastened from London to fight the Liberal in Bolton West. Granada stood by on Nomination Day to take them both into the scheduled programmes if they agreed to appear — and to cancel both Bolton constituencies altogether if they refused.

But the Liberal stayed at home all day, and the Conservative, un-nominated, went back to London.

At 4.47 p.m. in Leeds and at 4.52 p.m. in Manchester, Marathon was on the air.

The post Election Marathon: organising Election Marathon appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

They drank tea and broke biscuits together in a room away from the studio which was to be the scene of their ordeal and their opportunity. The Liberal Agent for Blackpool, in the manner of a trainer with an overweight boxer, declared he had got his candidate down to 55 seconds. A Conservative knight went off into one comer with his notes and pencil. In the centre of the room a big man with a rosette quietened a nervous conversation about television: “We’re going to win anyway; we’re not worried”.

All the candidates had been given caption cards to identify them and their parties for the viewers. They had balloted for order of speaking. They had been asked, too, to study a memorandum from Granada about television and the law, which said among other things: “There must not be any appeals to vote as such, and there must not be any offensive representation of or reference to a living person”.

It seemed to be narrowing politics a bit. Nobody, it is true, looked as if they would like to make offensive representations, though a production assistant was saying to a meek-enough candidate: “If you are going to say something rude you should say it through the chair”.

The candidates were assured that they need not worry that they might be cut off in mid-adjective — but, said the producer, “when the light goes steady, you must quit”.

At 4.38 the first three groups were taken to the studio. The three candidates for Birkenhead, the first to go on the air, took their places and sat stiffly side by side. They had no notes, but their eyes had a withdrawn look that suggested that well-rehearsed words were passing before them.

There was not much of an audience for them — just the usual technicians, a producer and a pressman. In the constituencies their appearances would bring smiles, handshakes, applause — anything, perhaps, but the busy silence they now faced as they waited for the starter’s signal and the 60-second sprint.

The other candidates sat around behind the cameras and the cables, clutching their name-cards. Make-up girls descended on them with brushes and powder-puffs (“just to take the shine off”). Mrs. Barbara Castle took her place with 10 minutes to go, and asked for a cushion. She explained: “You can see more of him than me”.

“Three minutes to go”, said the floor-manager, and there was silence.

“One minute” . . . “30 seconds” … A hand sawed sharply down and Mr. Graham Routledge was on. He is a 32-year-old bachelor and a barrister. He had been sitting upright like a guardsman. He spoke in a homely, straightforward, slightly formal way: “I am privileged to be the Conservative candidate for Birkenhead. I was born in Higher Tranmere. I went to school there, I live there. Probably I have met you. Consequently I am myself aware of the benefits many of you have received from the increased prosperity of the last few years …”

So they were off into the land of summits and price indices, pension tables and balance-of-payments crises, with not yet much of a smile or a spark to keep the viewers awake. But it was a fair start, and as the Birkenhead three went stealthily out of the studio to make room for the Blackpool North trio, Mrs. Castle could be heard talking about oysters and caviar for the few, and her opponent replying with wage statistics, and Marathon was well on its way.

It was all quite polite, so far . . . Mrs. Castle had to be interrupted by the chairman when she was going past the 60-second mark at Flying Scot speed: she gave way with a smile. The Labour candidate for Blackpool South said that his opponent had been a good MP: the MP said that he appreciated such kind personal remarks.

Not until the last constituency on Monday, Bolton West, was there any smell of gunpowder. The Labour man attacked the Conservative-Liberal pact he said existed there. The third seat in the studio was empty because of phoney politics, he declared, staring angrily ahead. But the Liberal turned his wrath elegantly aside, gave a neat puff for his own election meeting that night — and finished under time.

Over to Yorkshire

Marathon was being broadcast from Leeds as well as Manchester to save the time of candidates and of television. A crew of 35 and four Granada Travelling Eye vehicles had moved in to do the job.

On the day the invitations went out for Marathon, work had started to turn a 3rd-floor Granada office in the Headrow into a television studio. Cables were passed from the street vehicles through a 3rd-floor window. Noise had been the biggest problem, for the Headrow is a busy road; but that had been overcome by curtaining the office walls.

Extra telephones and lighting had been arranged and other Granada offices converted. One had become a make-up room. Another two became studio waiting-rooms, with water carafes, where it was thought the candidates might like to pace and declaim their speeches. Despite the preliminary warning against the declamatory manner, they did.

A night in Leeds went like this:

At 10.10 p.m. the camera crews begin to arrive in the studio for 11.30 transmission. They switch on the cameras to warm up. Outside in Wormald Street the director and sound and vision engineers take their positions in the Control Van and tune in to Manchester. They have three stop-watches to time the candidates’ speeches.

In the reception rooms the first two candidates have arrived — from Rotherham tonight, 60 miles away. The producer briefs them: ‘‘You are free to use your hands and you can read notes if you want to. The camera will not see them…. If you want to show anything like a poster you can, but the camera will not move for them. If we allowed production techniques for one, we must allow them to all”.

Someone asks the Labour man about his 11,500 majority in Rotherham. He recites the oldest safe-seat joke: “We don’t count the votes there, we put ’em on the scales and weigh ’em.” The Conservative, by diplomacy or accident, thinks the conversation is about weight and talks about slimming: they are both heavyweights.

At 11 p.m., with half an hour to go, they are waiting only for the Conservative candidate from York. One or two people begin to look anxious. Ten minutes later he comes in from the night with a flurry of party workers. He has been delayed by a car crash.

With 20 minutes to go they all troop off to the studio on the 3rd floor. The candidates are powdered, their eyebrows brushed, their ties straightened. They take the floor.

Ten minutes to Marathon and the chairman runs through his opening speech. The candidates put on their poker faces.

The producer sits behind a partition with a monitor set, and another stop-watch. Earphones connect him to the director in the control van outside. The producer will flash the studio light that tells a speaker he must come to an end. Elaborate precautions have been made against overrunning. A big card marked “I” stands ready for the producer to wave at the chairman if he wants him to intervene between two candidates, and another marked “F” which means that, as a desperate last resort, he is going to fade out the programme.

Then the cue comes, the Conservative smiles into the camera, speaks and takes his signal to close. The Labour man calls him “Ron” as they debate steel nationalisation and the Conservative starts back, “Let’s be fair about this, Jack”.

Now their minutes have gone and it is the York candidates who are sparring, with milder blows: “Sometimes, you know, I couldn’t agree with you less”. When the York candidate says that Socialism is “pie in the sky” the Rotherham Labour man looks as if he will break in. But he doesn’t, and the broadcast ends on time and in good temper.

The Labour man from Rotherham sums up the amiability of it all: “These fellows are all right on their own. It’s when you get dozens of them it’s different”.

The post Election Marathon: Marathon goes on the air appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

Northern organisers of political parties on both sides of the Pennines seem agreed on Marathon. They liked it.

These were some of their comments:

Mr. Arthur N. Banks, Secretary of the N.W. Provincial Area of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations: “The Granada Election Marathon was a great, helpful and revealing pioneer effort in television electioneering. It succeeded in bringing candidates of all parties into the homes of many thousands of electors who do not attend meetings or get the opportunity of seeing their candidates face to face. I thought the presentation of Marathon was completely fair, most interesting, and admirably executed”.

Mr. Reg Wallis, North-West Regional Organiser of the Labour Party: “Marathon proved of very real interest to large numbers of electors and contributed to the interest in the Election, which led to a higher poll than 1955. Electors were not only interested in their own candidates, but in comparing them with those from other constituencies. A programme well worth reproduction.”

Mr. Albert Ingham, Chief Agent of the Liberal Party and Secretary of the Yorkshire Liberal Federation: “The idea of Marathon was a most effective and practical contribution to the General Election. Naturally there was a bit of repetition from candidates quoting policy and giving facts and figures, but all that made the vast television election audience General Election conscious. The times of the broadcasts could, perhaps, have been better selected, perhaps just after the evening news. The absence of an audience with its background of an odd heckler or two left Marathon a little lacking in colour, but, of course, time was the major, vital factor. All candidates in all parties had a fair crack of the whip and Granada did a first-class job…. Marathon was a success”.

What the Papers Said

Whatever their critics might think of it, the newspapers treated Marathon as news.

The nationals reported after the first day:

“Marathon Gets Off to No-Hitch Start” (News Chronicle).

“Barbara (on TV) Attacks ‘Bubbly Boom'” (Daily Express).

“Labour Daubs Tory TV Whitewash” (Daily Herald).

“That certain Smile Steals TV Marathon” (Daily Mail).

The Mail story began: “Is a good TV smile a vote winner? Every party will be pondering that one today after the hit success of Mrs. Barbara Garden, a Conservative candidate who stole the Granada election marathon”.

The Express gave a column to the first show. It reported that after it Mrs. Barbara Castle said: “Electors can see their candidates but there isn’t enough time to impress them either with personality or argument”.

The Express did a survey of reactions, but apparently it had difficulty finding anyone who watched:

“I would have like to have looked in but it was rather a difficult time — I was getting my husband’s dinner ready” — Mrs. Catherine Farr, Blackburn.

The Express also reported: A snap check on five homes in Bolsover revealed that only one family watched.

The Daily Herald, dabbling in metaphor, reported: “Granada’s TV Election programme Marathon started last night with a dreary procession of Tory candidates — each armed with whitewash”.

The local papers told their readers what their candidates said on Marathon:

“Tory and Socialist fight it out on TV Marathon” (Oldham Evening Chronicle).

“Hull’s Lively Eight on TV” (Hull Daily Mail).

“Clash on TV Over Schools” (Keighley News).

“That Pension Quote Comes Up on TV” (Lincolnshire Echo).

“Blackpool Candidates Make History on Television” (Blackpool Gazette. The Gazette gave the candidates’ remarks in full.)

In Sheffield what happened on Marathon rumbled in the headlines for several days afterwards — and came back on Marathon. The argument was about newspaper articles the Labour candidate for Attercliffe, Mr. J. B. Hynd, produced on the show. “Look at these headings in the Tory press — ‘Redundancy is feared at English Steel Corporation’ and ‘Longer Dole Queues’,” said Mr. Hynd.

“Outside the studio”, reported the Sheffield Star, “the real row started when Mr. Hynd showed Sir Peter Roberts the copy of the Star he had produced. Indignantly Sir Robert pointed out: ‘But look at the date, that was in November last year . . . Bad show that, John, to produce an old copy of the Star. Just not cricket.’ Mr. Hynd: ‘But unemployment still exists’.” Two days later on Marathon another Conservative candidate criticised Mr. Hynd for displaying the newspaper — and the Labour candidate hotly defended him.

In Chorley, the Evening Telegraph reported that the Labour candidate had challenged his opponent to debate nationalisation after something said on Marathon. In Blackpool the Gazette reported that the Conservatives were “indignant” at a statement about evictions a Labour candidate made on Marathon. The Yorkshire Post gave half a column to the debate between Mr. Gaitskell and his Leeds South Conservative opponent, Mr. J. Addey.

“Hot Studio with Cool Atmosphere: Sharp TV Answer for Mr. Gaitskell” was the Yorkshire Post‘s headline for the last day of the Election Marathon.

Some of the critics tended to treat the Election Marathon simply as entertainment.

Richard O’Sullivan of the Daily Express thought Marathon too fast: “The programme was a flier — but not a flop, though it was too fast to have much impact”.

The Manchester Guardian, however, thought differently. It said: “A marathon of a minute”.

“One minute,” wrote Guardian critic W. J. Weatherby, “can still be a long time”. He found Marathon without much profit in political argument, psychological case-study, or visual entertainment. He wrote: “Perhaps some of the candidates would not have been so eager [to appear] if they could have seen themselves as we have seen them. A few of those minutes have already seemed even longer than 60 seconds….”

It was, of course, a conscientious public-spirited offer on Granada’s part, but a minute’s sober and cynical reflection might have suggested what the result was going to be for the poor viewer. Face after face like election posters or pictures of wanted men, have devoted their minutes laboriously and dogmatically to such topics as Suez or old age pensions or themselves. The result has been as boring as watching every lap of a real marathon race’’.

Nor did this critic like the camera staying focused on the candidate full-face (the idea had been that an unchanged picture was the fairest for all), or the chairman’s “poker-face throughout, as if he is afraid that the slightest change of expression might lead to charges of favouritism”.

It was, however, this scrupulous impartiality that most favourably impressed Maurice Richardson in the Observer.

He thought that Marathon was conducted “with impeccable fairness”. But he, too, was worried about those faces: “the production was strikingly like the Police Gazette’s ‘Wanted Men’ photographs”.

T. F. Lindsay in an article in the Daily Telegraph “’Prentice Hands at the TV Hustings” took the same view as the Guardian: “Granada’s Marathon may have been imaginative but it has not made enough allowance for human weakness. Very few candidates have stood up to the test of the unforgiving minute without taking on the appearance of ruffled and harassed parrots”.

Peter Black, in the Daily Mail, analysed the assumption that an inexpert performance would harm a candidate. He wrote: “The job is so big, involving so many different candidates, that the bogy of partiality has been dealt a severe blow which may, with luck, prove fatal. It is obvious that if there is partiality it can come only from the comparative merits of the candidates which are bound to even themselves out. And are these merits as unmistakable as some observers think? Candidate A talks on TV as confidently as though it owed him money. Candidate B is nervous as though the camera were his old headmaster. It is usually assumed that A will impress more than B, but why should he ? Why should not people be as impressed by diffidence as by confidence? In fact, we know that in real life they are equally impressed in roughly equal numbers”.

Marathon was too tame for Jon Akass, the Daily Herald columnist. He wrote: “The idea is to give all candidates in the area a chance to show their face on the telly for an equal length of time. Most of the candidates also say something, probably because they feel foolish just sitting there…. It doesn’t much matter what they say because the whole thing is so hemmed in by statutes that any sort of live controversy would be like dancing the can-can in a minefield … I don’t like this sort of caper. It might be very British and gentlemanly but I don’t like it. Elections get really interesting when the candidates begin to get on each other’s nerves”.

Norman Hare agreed, at the end of his account in the News Chronicle: “Only the children were likely to be upset by the start of Marathon. It delayed Popeye’s appearance on the screens in Northern homes for 25 minutes”.

The northern press notices were equally mixed.

After four days of Marathon, the Yorkshire Post critic, Peter Jackson, said: “Granada have fulfilled their obligations towards the electorate with Marathon. It is bound to stimulate interest in itself and the speakers we have seen so far have, for the most part, broken away from party politics and discussed the problems of their own constituencies. The initiative taken by Granada may mark the beginning of an entirely new form of electioneering … but I cannot help feeling that a great deal would be lost in the way of interchange of ideas if the personal touch were to go”.

The Liverpool Echo thought Marathon too long: the Bradford Telegraph thought it too short. The Bradford Telegraph critic was angry about the brevity of Marathon: “Nine West Riding candidates were shot through in almost as many minutes last night and at a time when most people would be on the bus going home or having tea….” There was a glimpse, said the critic, of the Prime Minister’s son, but “for any expression of policy or even collected thought the time available was farcical and produced some irritating results with the would-be MPs being cut off abruptly in the middle of a sentence”.

To the Blackburn Evening Telegraph critic this was not the point: “What they said is relatively unimportant. What matters is that they accepted the challenge to appear on television in front of people whose only chance to see them this would be…. Even in three minutes the cameras can say a good deal more than words”.

What the Candidates Said

Finally, those most concerned personally — the candidates: How did they react to the experience, often their first time before the cameras? Did the programme help them at all in their campaigning? What kind of reaction did it bring in the constituency?

Granada invited the candidates and their agents to give their opinions on Marathon, for this was an experiment as new to Granada as to those taking part.

This is a summary of their reactions:

81 letters have been received from MPs and ex-candidates. 41 commented on the favourable reception of Marathon in their constituencies. 32 felt the time allotted had been too short. 26 said the hours of transmission had been unsuitable. 13 praised Marathon for giving viewers the chance of seeing their candidates. 10 were surprised at the wide coverage of the programme. 8 thought the programme had been well worth doing. 7 were amazed at how much could in fact be said in one minute. 6 said the programme was boring and that there had been too much repetition. 4 were convinced Marathon had increased public interest in the election. 3 complained of uncomfortable seating. 3 complained of bad make-up and lighting — said they were made to look old. 3 felt there should have been a different system for the order of speaking; the last person to speak having a distinct advantage. 3 said Marathon was of no benefit to those who had already been MPs: it gave their opponents an advantage in getting themselves known. 2 felt that advance publicity had not been good enough: they would have liked to include times of appearance in election addresses; only Marathon was mentioned in TV Times, not the names of the constituencies and candidates. 2 would have liked a rehearsal. One would have liked a clock with seconds hand. One complained that the Chairman did nothing but keep time. One would have liked a drink of water or preferably something stronger, before and after the programme.

Some of these points are enlarged on in extracts from letters printed hereafter.

Those Who Were For

By no means every candidate thinks more time is needed. Mr. Peter Cameron (Labour, Bolton West): “General opinion seems to be that a brief appearance on television is a good idea, and people seem happier watching a large number of candidates making short speeches than they do listening to one long-drawn-out lecture …. From the number of people who have commented on Monday’s broadcast, it can be assumed that we had a fairly large audience in Bolton.”

Two candidates said they had changed their opinion about Marathon, in its favour.

Col. Douglas Glover (Conservative, Ormskirk) says: “I am going to be quite honest and say that my original view of this programme was that it was a waste of time and after the first performances I was rather confirmed in my opinion. However, as I see the programme unfolding, I believe that the final conclusion will be that it has served a very valuable purpose”.

Sir Roland Robinson (Conservative, Blackpool South) says: “It was the first time I had appeared in a television programme in this country and I had serious doubts as to whether it was possible to make an effective contribution in the short space of one minute. Now that it is over my doubts have resolved themselves, and I feel that you have a very interesting programme which gave a fair chance to all…. Obviously all members and candidates would like to have more time, but if we get down to it, it is possible to say something useful in a short time. The broadcast seems to have been well received in Blackpool. A great many people seem to have listened to it, and I get very favourable comments about it when I am out canvassing”.

Indeed, “I saw you on the telly” seems to have been said to a number of candidates on their canvassing rounds.

From Huyton, Mr. Ben Woolfenden says this: “We were overwhelmed with messages from constituents who stayed up to see the programme. My personal reaction is that the programme enabled me to be seen by many thousands of electors, who otherwise would never have been able to see me. I admit that before attending your studios I had some doubts about the value of accepting your invitation, but now I am delighted I accepted…. Quite apart from the residents in the houses I visited yesterday I was hailed by many people such as a coalman and a milkman who called across the street to me something like ‘Saw you on telly last night, mate’.”

And from Westhoughton, Lt. Col. John E. Gouldbourn: “All sorts of people I speak to in the streets say ‘I saw you on the telly’. And this remark is said with a smile and obvious pleasure”.

When the Conservative candidate for Wrexham went on Marathon, his agent had an inspection panel of supporters (“specially selected to criticise”) waiting in Wrexham. He sends Granada this report:

“The immediate reaction from the panel was that Mr. Pierce had scored heavily for the following reasons: though his opening speech had been carefully rehearsed — again before a panel of three with a tape recorder and a final rehearsal of 21 hours — it seemed spontaneous. He had an intimate approach from the commencement…. His final remarks caused a laugh, which was considered to be effective…. He appeared alive throughout”.

And the reaction in Wrexham generally. “Though the broadcast was at a bad time for maximum appeal, within an hour people in Wrexham were heard talking about it. The discussion on the programme was at a peak on Saturday mid-day (shoppers, etc.) and in the evening, too, frequent references to the broadcast were heard. Mr. Pierce walking with the agent in Wrexham on Saturday evening was stopped several times: ‘Weren’t you on TV last night 7’ And we heard talk, ‘That’s the man who was on TV last night*.”

That seems to have been the main favourable impression of candidates who liked Marathon: it introduced them to the voters.

Mr. Frank Pearson (Conservative, Clitheroe) reports: “I have found in this constituency that my appearance was of the very greatest value, particularly in that as a new candidate it served to introduce me for the first time to many of my constituents”.

And Alderman J. E. McColl (Labour, Widnes), though he was not a new candidate: ‘‘I found the television appearance very unnerving, but appreciate the chance it gave me. My impression from canvassing here and from the comments of election workers is that a large number of people watched the programme and expressed their satisfaction that at least they knew what their candidate looked like”.

Miss Pat O’Gara, who fought Manchester (Cheetham) and lost, sums it up thus: ‘‘When all came to all, I didn’t feel nervous on Marathon…. I’m dying for the next election now”.

Those Who Were For (With Reservations)

The cameras owe an apology, it seems, to Mrs. Lewis Carter-Jones. She did not appear on Marathon, but her husband did and he writes: ‘‘My wife did not recognise me!” Apparently, Dr. Edith Summerskill’s husband had moments of doubt, too, for she writes: ‘‘So far as the make-up is concerned, although I realise that the lights are pretty cruel, I think in the future I shall appear with my own face! My husband found it difficult to recognise me…. I have had the most encouraging reports on the Election Marathon”.

Strangely enough, Dr. Edith’s opponent in Warrington, Mr. Frank Stansfield, had reports that he didn’t look well. He writes: “From what lots of people have told me here my effort was a great success, the only criticism being that I appeared to look ill. Perhaps this was due to the lighting. Anyway, it is a comparatively unimportant point compared with the main issue”.

But Mr. Carter-Jones, despite his disconcerting domestic experience, found that “one minute certainly tends to condense the mind”.

Of reaction in the constituency he says: “It was quite varied. Most people thought the time permitted was all too short… Again most people seemed pleased that their constituency had at least been represented in Marathon, and that they had been given an opportunity of seeing and hearing their candidates”.

Unknown to Granada there was apparently another distraction, revealed by Mr. Frank McManus (Labour, Morecambe): “Rather a lot of people here told me they weren’t free to see the broadcast. One said it clashed with Mrs. Dale’s Diary”. Mr. McManus, however, also writes: “I think Marathon was a splendid idea. Limiting the speeches to one minute made the event less of an ordeal for us newcomers. Most of those who saw the programme say they liked it”.

One or two other candidates comment on the experience of going before the camera. Mr. David Crouch (Conservative, Leeds West): “It is a nerve-racking experience to sit before the camera knowing you have only 60 seconds, no time to waste and no time for mistakes…. I think your staff in Leeds where I was televised were excellent in somehow managing to create the atmosphere ‘don’t worry, it’s all great fun’.”

Mr. Crouch says that he watched Marathon before he went on “and must say I got a bit bored with it. It was a case of ‘one damn candidate’ after another. Potted politics of this sort are somewhat boring. On the other hand, I did find that my own constituents, the people who were personally interested in me, were interested in the few minutes we were on…. I think that is the way the programme should be judged. It was an opportunity for reaching probably more of one’s constituents in a few minutes than one could meet in the whole of an election campaign. I certainly found that a lot of people I canvassed had seen me on TV”.

Criticisms from Mr. Crouch are that the time for speaking was too short and more advance publicity was needed. But he takes this look into the future of TV electioneering: “I welcome your innovation…. Another time it might even be a good thing if the candidates were to publicise their television appearance in their own election literature. I think that the time should be used to put over personality rather than politics which, after all, is what we are trying to do when one goes canvassing”.

Or as Mr. Walter Clegg (Conservative, Ince) put it: “I am convinced the experiment was worth trying — it blooded many of us in the new art and even a candidate in a difficult seat hopes one day he may be a by-election star”.

Several candidates make good-humoured points about the production itself. For instance, Mr. John Price (Labour, Westhoughton): “The seating of the ‘pugilists’ is rather crude, and is too far from the bench on which any notes may have to be placed, causing a tendency which I felt throughout my couple of minutes to lean forward, as one does in a pulpit…. I suppose that would be all wrong from the point of view of the cameras, but that was my impression”. He adds: “I have made door-to-door tours of my constituency during the past two days in widely scattered areas and was astonished at the number of people who have made reference to the programme in complimentary terms”….

Nor is Mr. Robert Sheldon (Labour, Withington) entirely happy about how the candidates looked to the voters: “One change I would urge: instead of the candidates appearing as members of a panel they should sit round a chairman with more informality… This would give the viewer a look at the whole candidate and present something more than an animated police photograph”.

But Mr. Sheldon considers Marathon, on the whole, worthwhile: “It is very easy to criticise Marathon because of the obvious defects due to shortage of time and the number of candidates who had to take part. On the whole I think you did a splendid job in bringing some of the electors their first sight of their candidates contesting the General Election. For this you deserve high praise for a sense of social responsibility unique in independent television companies”.

Or as Mr. Horrocks (Conservative, Ashton-under-Lyne) puts it: “It would seem that the minute allowed was, of course, hardly sufficient to allow a reasonable line of political approach…. But it did at least allow the dog to see the rabbits”.

Mr. W. S. Shepherd (Conservative, Cheadle) suggests three minutes to a candidate might be reasonable, and he also has this to say about going on the air: “The physical and psychological conditions within the studio are bad, as you will appreciate. It is not perhaps quite so bad for those who have some little experience of the medium, but it must be pretty terrifying to the man who is a complete newcomer”.

Mr. Shepherd adds: “Some screening between groups of candidates might help in this respect”. (Mr. Tony Leavey, Conservative, Heywood and Royton, confirms that he found it unnerving to be in the same studio with other candidates: “It is an alarming experience when the little red light is upon you for the first time”).

Those Who Were Against

The commonest complaint from the candidates about Marathon was that it was too short; and few liked the afternoon and late-night viewing times.

The strongest criticism came from Mr. Ludovic Kennedy, himself a television personality, who appeared on Marathon as the Liberal candidate for Rochdale. But it was not the time that worried Mr. Kennedy. He didn’t like the whole experiment.

His forthright letter touches on many points: “As a viewer on the nights preceding my own participation, I found the whole thing a colossal bore, and for two reasons: First, to talk to a television camera well is something that requires not weeks but months of experience. Nine-tenths of those taking part had no such experience, and so were totally unable to communicate. Instead of what the participants had to say being communicated in a relaxed intimate sort of way, we were treated to a succession of wooden statements, most of them either learned by heart or read from a script”.

Mr. Kennedy goes on to give the second reason why he found Marathon “a bore”:

“I was not a voter in any of the constituencies and so did not have the interest an elector might have of seeing and summing up his own candidate. While the parading of them before the public in this way was obviously a public service on behalf of Granada (most of any electorate never set eyes on their candidates), I doubt whether it would make much difference to the voting one way or the other. (My own view on all political broadcasts during the election was that if we had never had any of them the result would have been just the same).”

Mr. Kennedy then discusses his own night on Marathon when he appeared with Mr. Jack McCann (Labour) and Mr. Tom Normanton (Conservative):

“I have two comments. The first is that one minute is ample time to make one or two good points, providing one talks and doesn’t recite. My second comment is that I did my best to answer Mr. Normanton’s first statement and Mr. McCann did his best to answer mine. But Mr. Normanton merely recited a second prepared statement which bore absolutely no relevance to what either Mr. McCann or I had been saying. This was not only avoiding awkward questions on his part but very poor television.”

Finally: “This applied on other occasions, too, when I was looking in — people just would not or could not reply (the actual word in Granada’s instructions) to what their opponents said. Next time I hope you’ll make them.

“Apart from all this, thanks for asking me. I enjoyed it”.

Mr. Bernard Taylor (Labour, Mansfield) summed up the criticisms that Marathon was too short: “I think it was a waste of time travelling 120 miles away from home for two minutes”. He adds, however: “Personally I enjoyed it…. I am not complaining for I appreciate you were anxious to afford the facility to everyone”.

Two candidates said they found Marathon made no impact. From Chester, Mr. Jack Temple (Conservative) wrote: “So far the television programme does not appear to have made such impact on the City of Chester constituency”.

And Mr. W. Geraint Morgan (Conservative and National Liberal, Denbigh): “In such a widespread constituency as this it is very difficult to assess the effect of my brief appearance on the television screen. Not many of our viewers are looking in at 4.15 p.m. and I cannot report any positive reaction”.

The post Election Marathon: the verdict appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

Some, like Sir Roland Robinson (Conservative, Blackpool South) took the whole of their first minute to put themselves over: “It is now 24 years since you first returned me…. I was a young man then, a Blackpool boy, and I was so proud of the confidence you placed in me . . .”

Others mixed it. Like Mr. Griffith H. Pierce of Wrexham, nodding into the camera as a how-d’ye-do and beaming a big smile: “Sorry if I’m breaking into your meal, your tea. You know I’m the sort of fellow the Socialists say doesn’t exist, a working man who won a scholarship to a grammar school. …I’ve worn out a pair of shoes walking round the council houses built since the Tories came in…”

Or like Dr. Edith Summerskill: “I came into the Labour Party because I saw disease and poverty. In the thirties I was one of a small group of Socialist doctors who helped plan the National Health Service…. Give us another chance to improve it”.

There was plenty, of course, about local issues. The mills in Accrington. The fish in Fleetwood. The jobs on Hull docks. Hill-farming in Staffordshire. Steel in Sheffield. Council house rents in Huyton. Schools in Middleton. Slum houses in Manchester Exchange. Pits in Wigan. And Derbyshire’s cricketing record.

How They Debated

Some candidates on Marathon were shy of debate. “I have no time in 60 seconds”, said one, “to reply to the views of my opponent. I have formed my opinion of them and I dare say you have, so I’ll let it go at that…”

But there were genuine clashes.

The Northwich Conservative candidate, a legal expert, said the threat of nationalisation still hung over ICI Northwich. The Labour man, slowly and decisively, as if reading a summons, said that this was a deliberate lie. The Conservative looked angry, and repeated the statement — adding that his opponent was afraid of the issue . . .

Sometimes it was first names: “Now look here, Harold, we know practically everyone in the world believes we were right about Suez”. Sometimes the language was not parliamentary — such as the Liberal young woman from Skipton: “With all due respect to my political opponents, both of whom I like, they don’t belong to Skipton. My two opponents, with all due respect, are nothing better than brain-washed party hacks”. They took it with a smile.

And then there were the minority candidates. What would they be like, these fierce young men from Wales under the flying banner of Plaid Cymru? All the Denbigh and West Flint candidates, not to be outdone, spoke a few words in Welsh. Wrexham’s was one of the best debates, with the handsome Nationalist with tumbling black hair one minute proclaiming “we will not cease in our fight” and the next, as if in a cosy discussion in a pub, referring to “my friend Idwal Jones”.

There was even a “Lancastrian” candidate, from Nelson and Colne, who told us that he supported “the Lancashire Development Bill and the United Nations”.

How They Came Over

This was the politics of the split second and the mercurial tongue. The wise ones started off like sprinters. Mr. Tom Brown from Ince had a page of notes on the history of National Insurance but the light flashed when he had only got to 1949. He made up for it next time round.

We had the courtly and the chummy, the aggressive and the submissive; those who prescribed like well-mannered family doctors, those who had the evangelistic manner of the pulpit (“my friends, you do not want a society based on greed”), those who talked like economists or company chairmen, the boardroom (“there are only 18 operatives in the mill under 32 years of age”).

There were Kitcheneresque apostrophes with pointing finger; and the less dramatic view of a bald head bent forward to read. Some stuck to their scripts and lost all contact with the viewers — particularly when the speech had phrases like “his/or her job”. Some read and spoke their messages as if they were telegrams, in words of one syllable. There were livelier passages, too, such as the comment of the Wigan Labour candidate: “My Communist opponent is a follower of Karl Marx, who was a 19th-century philosopher; my Conservative opponent is a follower of Mr. Macmillan, who has a 19th-century mind”.

Or Mr. Ludovic Kennedy on the Summit: “It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Macmillan or Mr. Gaitskell or whether the Mayor of Rochdale goes to the Summit, and on the whole I’d prefer the Mayor of Rochdale”.

Altogether it was a torrent of political truth and platitude, economic argument, and family detail, a deluge of promises and exhortation.

It was politics as varied in character as the north-country voters to whom it was addressed.

The post Election Marathon: what they talked about appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.

Marathon was designed as an information programme. It was directed at a series of particular constituencies. It was advertised in 31 newspapers at a cost of some thousands of pounds. Its aim was to link candidate and constituent, nothing more. On that basis, Granada did not expect a wide audience for any one Marathon programme (directed at, say, five constituencies with an average electorate of 60,000). Nor did Granada know to what extent constituents being addressed would find Marathon a useful service.

The broad answer has been given by Television Audience Measurement (TAM), a marketing research organisation which records audience sizes for ITV. Granada thought these TAM figures encouraging, for they showed that on average more than

200.000 homes were watching Marathon, and at times at least a million people were viewing.

Marathon was on the air a total of 11 hours 41 minutes — in Lancashire 6 hours 3 minutes, and 5 hours 38 minutes in Yorkshire. The biggest audience for any one programme was 332,000 homes in Lancashire on Marathon’s first night, when an average of 24% of the homes were tuned in. In Yorkshire the biggest audience was also on the first night, when 141,000 homes, or 14% tuned in.

The TAM figures also show:

1. despite the off-peak hours many of the series were viewed by more people than watched the party political broadcast screened in the region earlier in the evening (at 10 p.m.).
2. every afternoon Marathon programme drew more viewers as it continued. For instance, on Monday Oct. 5 in Lancashire, 4% of the homes were tuned in for the first ten minutes, and 17% for the last four minutes.
3. except for the first night, the numbers viewing the late night Marathon dropped as the programme continued. Presumably people switched off and went to bed after they had seen their own candidates (BBC had shut down, so there was no alternative programme for viewers to switch to). Never more than 10% switched off — and on Oct. 2 the numbers viewing (15% of the homes at the start, 11.31 p.m.) had fallen by only 2% at the end of the programme, 11.40 p.m.
4. during the period of Election Marathon, the weekday audience in the Northern region for all party political broadcasts was well above the national average. This suggests tha tpeople in the North, perhaps stimulated by Marathon, may have been taking a greater interest in the General Election.

These TAM figures do not, of course, show the effects of Marathon in any one constituency. So Granada asked Research Services Ltd. to prepare a more detailed selective report. A further report and analysis is being prepared.

AN ONLOOKER’S VIEW

‘I do not know the results of Granada’s ‘Operation, Marathon’, but anyone deeply concerned with the relationship between television and the continuation of democratic processes must applaud the effort to prevent political television from becoming too big — from concentrating too much on the national political figures”. — Edward R. Murrow, the world-famous American television reporter, in the second of the British Association Granada lectures at Guildhall, London, on October 19th, 1959.

The post Election Marathon: how many viewed appeared first on THIS IS GRANADA from Transdiffusion.