Television Workers take Anti-Tour Stance

The Television Producers and Directors Association, in a secret ballot a few weeks ago, is known to have voted for its members to refuse to be involved in tour coverage. This still officially unanounced decision would rule out the possibility of multi-camera live electronic coverage of tour matches and reduce coverage to film highlights well after each match.

The Public Service Association, knowing it could not bind all its members or all broadcasters to any anti-tour decision, has nevertheless voted that no member who is against the tour should be forced to work on coverage.

Broadcasting journalists, while not taking a definite stand, want assurances on security and acceptability from the rugby authorities. In short, the spectre of last season's fracas at Eden Park still haunts the issue.

At the moment all these staff groups are keeping their counsel, so as not to embarrass the corporation board, which keeps putting off its decision - and jeopardising any sort of deal for rugby coverage this season, Springboks or no Springboks.

Having taken over the decision from middle level executives, the board presumably considers the tour a moral or "wider public interest" issue. If the public interest at large is involved, and all the arguments on both sides already fully aired by both the Government and the rugby union, one could ask why a decision on such philosophical considerations need be delayed.

A board that sets itself up as keeper of the public conscience should not, in theory, be tarrying until it works out which will be the more popular course to take.

This is the third time the BCNZ has been put in the situation of making a programming decision affected by New Zealand's international interests, as conveyed by the Government.

The first last year was the decision not to screen the "Death of a Princess" documentary which could have jeopardised the country's trading relations with Saudi Arabia. The corporation, however, opted for a range of reasons for its ban that did not include the Government's request.

Similarly, the corporation scaled down its TV and radio plans for covering the Moscow Olympics - but once again it could say the Government's pressure for a boycott was not the reason. The boycott pressure already applied by the Government on sporting bodies had already worked so well that the BCNZ made its choice, to renege on its arrangements with Soviet TV, on the argument that New Zealand interest in the games had diminshed sharply.

In fact, that wasn't as true as the Corporation thought and its efforts to salvage some live coverage were thwarted by Soviet intransigence.