Letter: BBC injunction fails audience
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: All of the sides involved in the debate on whether the BBC's Panorama programme involving an interview with the Prime Minister should have been transmitted in Scotland (4 April) are guilty of overlooking the most important factor in this issue - the audience. The politicians, judiciary, and even the BBC failed to take into account the audience's own ability to view political programmes (whether in the pending period or not) without it affecting their own ideology.
During the US presidential elections of the 1960s, extensive audience research was carried out to discover how much impact political party broadcasts had upon the electorate's decision in choosing a new president. The findings concluded that no matter how biased the transmissions were, they had no direct influence upon people's voting behaviour.
Those responsible for enforcing the injunction have acted on an archaic assumption. They feel that the relationship between the broadcasters and the audience is a one-way process, and all the messages that a programme conveys (in this case Panorama) are "injected" into the viewers' psyche, either consciously or subconsciously. Sociologists called this belief the "hypodermic needle model" and it was dismissed back in the 1930s for being naive. The current belief is that audiences have become very advanced and uses programmes to strengthen their own outlook upon the world, and conversely, dismiss any programme which does not agree with their own individual ideology.
With the above in mind, it would appear that the injunction was imposed in a knee-jerk manner due to the time factor involved, and it would be dangerous for any precedent concerning future broadcasts to be based upon a misguided assumption.
Yours faithfully,
MARK KINVER
Broadcasting Studies student
Falmouth College of Arts
Cornwall
5 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments