There are real advantages in seeing our own problems as others see them. In spite of the staggering development of mass communications most of us remain insular in our attitude towards current affairs. We hardly ever read foreign newspapers or even magazines; foreigners occasionally take part in radio and television commentaries, but normally as “guests” reassuringly introduced or questioned by someone of our own nationality we can trust. Of course many American and some Canadian and Australian documentary programmes have been seen in Britain, but their importation has been spasmodic; few British and fewer Canadian or Australian programmes have been shown in the United States, where it has generally been held that none but American commentators with an American point of view are suitable for an American audience. Now this prejudice has been broken down.
The reception of Associated-Rediffusion’s first two programmes in both the United States and Canada has been enthusiastic. “Excellent programme — excellent project. And an impressive first step in a regular exchange of programming between peoples of the world,” said the New York Times of “The Quiet War.“ “A most promising introduction to this new series,” said the Montreal Star. The fact that Westinghouse have obtained sponsors for the whole series shows what the possibilities are.
The members of Intertel select their programmes on the principle that no country shall report on itself or on problems where its own vital interests are concerned. The Canadians, rather than the Americans, are doing the programme on Cuba. The Americans have looked at Britain, the British at Canada. If a programme were to be done on Malaya it would fall to one of our three partners because, until recently, the British interests in Malaya were paramount. Because the programmes are exchanged and have to stand up to criticism in the countries where the problems dealt with are familiar, there is less likelihood of the treatment being sensational than if they were for foreign consumption only. On the other hand the treatment cannot be “soft” if only because programmes designed “to please” invariably fail.
So far, therefore, Intertel can claim to have been a success. What matters is that the standard should not merely be maintained but improved. Although by British television standards, budgets have been generous, this may mean devoting more time and money to each programme. A valid criticism of television is that even when serious it is superficial; to get below the surface, writers and directors need more time to prepare their scripts, and time means money. On the other hand extra time spent in the preparation of a programme may cut down the time spent shooting it and should certainly help the members of Intertel to keep their schedule of a programme every six weeks.
Intertel has had its troubles. The Australians ran into exchange control difficulties, the Canadians were held up in Cuba. Both the Americans and Associated-Rediffusion have had to revise their first conceptions of a programme. But if the experiment can continue as it has begun, Intertel may well establish itself as the most thorough and authoritative television commentary on international events in the English-speaking world.