More Channels and Longer Hours?
As has been seen the Committee’s chosen method was to solicit facts and opinions from spokesmen for the broadcasting bodies and from whatever individuals or organised groups responded to an open invitation to give ‘evidence’, and then compare what it had thus learned with the definition its members had collectively reached of the ‘purposes of broadcasting’. Theoretically at least, any desirable changes or further developments in the broadcasting services should follow self-evidently from such a comparison. The flaw in this approach was that evidence submitted by groups and organisations (usually established for purposes not related to broadcasting) did not necessarily reflect accurately the attitudes and expectations of the general public as consumers of broadcasting. The Committee might, of course, have enlisted the aid of social scientists as Barbara Wootton was to suggest later in a letter to The Times 1 — to provide it with apparently verifiable objective data on which to base judgements and recommendations. This it chose not to do.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.