A Farewell Speech delivered by John Beyer, Director, to the mediawatch-uk AGM May 2009

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH

First of all I want to thank you all for coming to the AGM today especially those old friends who have come to say farewell.  Without doubt this is another milestone in my life which I am so pleased to share with you all.

I decided to call this address "Reflections" because so much has happened since I started working with Mary Whitehouse way back in 1976.  I wanted to recount a few of the memorable events in the campaign we have waged for better, more accountable, Broadcasting.

I wanted also to express my deep appreciation to everyone who contributed to my retirement gift.  There were so many gifts that it was just impossible to thank everyone personally, much as I wanted to.  The response has been overwhelming and very humbling. 

The messages that accompanied some of them were very touching and will always be greatly treasured.  Above all, these showed that mediawatch-uk is more than an organisation but rather like an extended family with a unity of purpose that binds us all together.

TRIBUTES

I want to tell you of some of the tributes that have come in:  David Stephenson the Media Editor on the Sunday Express said he was "gutted" and that I have been a "voice crying in the wilderness". 

His colleague, Martin Evans at the Daily Express, said: "I must say you have been an excellent spokesman for mediawatch-uk down the years and whoever takes over will find you a very hard act to follow."  This was a view echoed by a number of other people but I reply that no-one is, or should be, indispensable!

A letter from Rev Philip Campbell in Northern Ireland said: "It must have been hugely difficult to take Mary's place, but under your leadership the organisation has kept its focus on campaigning for decency and accountability in the media - apparently needed as much if not more now than in the day of our much missed President."

One of the most touching letters I received was from Mr Cowie in Scotland who apologised for sending a late contribution but he explained that his wife died shortly after he received our letter and he had been preoccupied with sorting out her affairs!  It moved me to tears to know that despite all he had to deal with he still took the trouble to send me a gift!

Another letter that I greatly value came from Philip Graf, the Deputy Chairman of Ofcom, who has invited me to tea to say farewell.  Although he differs with our position he told me last time we met, quite recently, that he has great respect for me and for mediawatch-uk.

More tributes will be published in the summer newsletter due out in July.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

I want to thank also the present Executive Committee for their unswerving support, loyalty and friendship over recent years and I especially wanted to thank John Milton Whatmore for stepping in to take the chair at this difficult time of transition.  I also want to thank Pauline Webborn for her friendship and her enthusiasm in the important role of Promotions and Development officer.  She has been a real tonic in the short time she has been with us.

I wanted to thank others, some no longer with us, for their camaraderie such as the late Chris FitzGerald who welcomed me into her home in Birmingham way back in 1974/75 when EC meetings were held there and, of course, my main mentor, Robert Standring, a former Treasurer and chairman, and his wife Eileen for their hospitality.

There are other former EC members too, such as, Diana Widdows, Shelia Sturdy, Roy Silver, Jim Bradshaw, Tom Wareing, Paul Rogoff, Steve and Kay Stevens, Irene Richardson, Maria Kerrigan, Janet Kippax, Hugh and Julia Thomas, Alan and Nicola Johnson, Alan Wye, Michael Hastings, Paul Danon, Andrew Tomkins and Graham Stevens; the late Charles Oxley, the late Polly and Roy Bennett, the late John Wilson (the flying Scotsman) and of course the late Ernest Whitehouse, all of whom contributed significantly in different ways, bringing their own talents, to the Committee.  Their commitment certainly helped to shape my approach to the campaign.

But it was Mary Whitehouse herself who was the biggest influence.  It was her book, Cleaning Up TV, that inspired me to contact her in the first place and this arose from the controversy surrounding the showing by ITV of the Andy Warhol film in 1973.

I was on a steep learning curve from the start!  On my first day, 4 October 1976, Mary was speaking to the clergy in Colchester, from there we raced down to London for a press conference at St Bride's Church, Fleet Street, to call upon the Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, to exclude Jens Jorgan Thorsen from Britain.

The place was packed with journalists, TV crews and radio reporters eager to get the story.  Thorsen intended to produce a film depicting Jesus Christ having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene.  She had obtained a copy of the script of the film from Holland, had this translated into English and presented it to Mr Rees. 

A picture of Mary holding up the book was published by numerous newspapers the next day.  There was so much controversy that Rees was eventually forced to exclude Thorsen on the grounds that he was an "undesirable alien".  But although this particular battle was won another film with a similar theme was made by Martin Scorsese some years later.

I was able to relieve Mary of much of the routine work being carried on by her and Ernest.  We have to thank Roy Silver for the hours he spent designing the administration software and transferring all the data.

THE MEDIA

What I did not bargain for were all the media interviews which have remained a constant feature of the day-to-day running of the organisation.  Rarely a day goes by without a call from a newspaper, radio station and sometimes a TV programme for a comment and we have been able to keep a respectable media profile. 

By our research and reasoned comments we have gained respect and we are often the first port of call for those working on media news stories and features.

Here I would like to express thanks to all the reporters, journalists and presenters for the many opportunities we have been given to state our case for high standards, decency and accountability.  I recall being interviewed once by Jacky Mason, the famous American comedian who, incidentally, I met by chance last year in New York.  Needless to say he did not remember me but neither did he remember Esther Rantzen who was on the same programme! 

And of course my latest appearance was on Panorama in February with Frank Skinner who said I was "formidable"!  Without doubt the best programme I contributed to was Eamon Hardy's BBC2 TV programme ‘If ... ' about reality TV and my essay can still be seen on the BBC's website.

Undoubtedly, we have been consistent and unwavering in our opposition to the imposition of media standards that have had a damaging effect on our culture and society.  There are just a handful of people now who own and run the media globally and the burden of responsibility on them is very heavy indeed.

It should also be stated that politicians too carry a huge responsibility for prevailing standards since it is the legislative framework that they have devised which gives priority to freedom of expression with little emphasis on responsibilities that flow from these freedoms.  We said at the time that the "light touch" regulation advocated by Chris Smith MP would not work for the public good, and we recall the words of Roy Hattersley in 2004 who said:

"The liberation, which I so welcomed 40 years ago, has not had the effect for which I hoped.   Foolishly, I believed that broadcasters, acting with little or no restraint, would produce an ever-improving quality of programme. 

The reverse has happened.  Television, in particular, has plunged so far down market that, week after week, I assume we have reached the nadir.  Then a programme plumbs ever-greater depths.  It seems that television can continue to degenerate indefinitely.

"Why go to the trouble and expense of producing first class shows when there is a fortune to be made from rubbish - as long as it is associated with sex and violence?  Notoriety increasingly takes the place of quality and forces the quality of broadcasting down, down, down."

TECHNOLOGY AND REGULATION

Whilst we marvel at the developments in media technology, they have enabled the goal posts to be moved, removing the responsibility of broadcasters not to offend against good taste or decency or offend public feeling and placing the onus on viewers and listeners to inform themselves about programmes and avoiding content which may cause harm or offence.

This approach gives false legitimacy to all manner of bad taste and indecency so long as information is provided for the "consumer".  We recently received a letter from a member of the public saying that he had written to Virgin Media about something offensive.  It was defended on the grounds that it would prejudice their business interests not to show it!

When I started in 1976 there was an Authority in charge of Independent Broadcasting; there was a Board of Governors at the BBC.  Now we have an Office of Communications and a Trust at the BBC.  Neither really implies proper oversight or regulatory control.

We have a Broadcasting Code that is ill-defined and, consequently, cannot be effectively enforced with regard to general content.  Very little seems to breach the Code despite mounting public protest.  Ofcom was established as a "light touch" regulator and we all know to our cost that in the world of finance "light touch" regulation has proved to be a disaster.  It is simply not good enough for regulators to excuse poor TV content by saying glibly that there is far worse material available on the Internet.  We say deal with that too!

Our greatest achievement was to secure law to prohibit child pornography and with a very strong campaign the Protection of Children Act was enacted in 1979.  I am proud to say that this is still very much in use today in the struggle against child abuse and pornographic imagery on the Internet. 

We are so glad that the Internet Watch Foundation and Child Exploitation and Online Protection group are working very hard to combat this evil and wicked manifestation of man's inhumanity.  Thankfully, there is global effort to stop this exploitation of children but it is alarming to read how many attempts to view such material are being blocked by responsible Internet Service Providers.

SOME HIGH POINTS

Here is a selection of high points that I would like to mention:

The first, and most important, is that it was here in 1997 that I met again my Cathy who I married in June that year.  She has been a great support to me having worked in the office for the last ten years, and she has exercised great patience at times when I have been so preoccupied.  It is a story in itself but suffice to say that she had been widowed and her mother, a member, invited her here when we held an award presentation to the BBC series Great Ormond Street and the BBC2 programme Tomorrow's Television.  This place will always be special to me for that reason.

I hope my successor has a very understanding family because at times it can be a very tough job especially when there are early morning, late evening and weekend telephone calls at home!

The second is the occasion when Mary was unable to travel. Graham Stevens and I met with Tony Blair, as Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, to discuss strengthening the Obscene Publications Act.  However, although he seemed concerned and asked his secretary to take copious notes, nothing actually happened!

Towards the end of 2007 I received a telephone call from Julian Brazier's office asking me to see him.  He planned to introduce a Private Member's Bill aimed at making the British Board of Film Classification more accountable to Parliament.  We said that this was a long-overdue reform given some of the awful films that the Board classifies for public exhibition.

We provided him with information and evidence to support the measure but I said it was critical that the Classification Guidelines should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny since everything depended on these.  In my opinion it was less important to have scrutiny over the appointments to the top positions at the Board.  I was delighted when my suggestion was included in the Bill.  It was a disappointment, however, that the Bill was talked out at Second Reading but Mr Brazier paid a generous tribute in the debate to mediawatch-uk.

I believe we have been right to focus attention on Parliament and stressing the importance of personal contact with MPs.  This is where laws are passed that affect everything - including the media.  I believe it is simply not good enough for politicians to say that they cannot legislate for morality when it seems very easy to legislate for immorality!

Since the formation of the Department for National Heritage, which took over responsibility for Broadcasting from the Home Office, we have not made much progress despite responding to most of the public consultations issued by this department on Broadcasting. 

It came as a pleasing surprise, therefore, when Andy Burnham agreed to meet us in October last year.  This was a very short meeting but we were able to express our concerns about the regulation of on-demand programming, computer games, product placement advertising and a number of other issues.

We are pleased that the Government seems to have decided not to permit product placement advertising and plans to extend Ofcom's remit to include regulation of on-demand programming - precisely what we called for!

I remember well a reception at Buckingham Palace to celebrate the Broadcasting industry.  This was a great occasion where I met briefly a number of well known presenters.  I also remember well the visit to the House of Lords at the invitation of Lord Dubs, the former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.  Again he listened intently to what I said but he could not offer any comfort and the BSC continued to reject complaints about some very dubious programming.

In our history we have always placed emphasis on praising good programmes and our Annual Award was presented to a wide range of programmes in the past.  Perhaps the most well known of these events was the presentation to Yes, Minister by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.  This has been shown many times since and the very clever script, along with the full story, is reproduced in Sir Bernard Ingham's autobiography.

We have recently revived the practice of making awards and have presented a Certificate of Excellence to a Liberty Bell production TV is Dead? shown on Channel 4.  Arrangements are being made to present Certificates to BBC programmes Nature's Great Events, Lark Rise to Candleford and Railway Walks presented by Julia Bradbury.

More recently I took part in a written debate with Professor Julian Petley about the Obscene Publications Act for the Guardian website which asked whether it is time to abolish this law.  Needless to say, rather than it be abolished I said it should be strengthened.  As expected my essays did not go down well with some readers!

CONCLUSION

The challenges now are far greater than when Mary Whitehouse started in 1964.  In those days there were just two TV channels and a handful of radio stations.  There was no internet, no computer games, no satellite or cable TV and video recorders were confined to the TV studios. 

The greatest difference then, however, is that there was a much stronger public consensus of what was right and wrong, what was acceptable on TV and what was not.  There was greater certainty about what was in good or bad taste and what was decent or indecent.

Sadly, all that has changed and broadcasting and film have contributed significantly to the destruction of that consensus and the fragmentation of values.  The ongoing challenge for everyone involved is to reverse the responsibility-free attitudes and behaviour of the permissive 60s which, combined with a political ideology, had a huge impact on the social, moral, ethical and economic evolution our society and culture. 

We sometimes wonder whether Roy Jenkins has any regrets about his advocacy that a better name for the permissive society is the civilised society!

The latest media developments, the iPlayer, the ITVPlayer, 4oD and so on, are beginning to make official schedules irrelevant as we can all choose our programming and when to view it.  The ultimate aim seems to be that we be enabled to make up our own schedules! 

The video recorder was the beginning of this process and now the latest generation of Personal Video Recorders make this very easy.  Some recorders are capable of storing up to 300 hours of material.  Watersheds are redundant and have been for many years and it beggars belief that broadcasters still justify harmful and offensive content because it was shown "after the 9 pm watershed".

Despite all this I am very confident that mediawatch-uk is up to all the challenges the future will bring and I urge you all to continue to support the new team.