CHILDREN’S PROGRAMMES
You would have to have been born before 1945 to have grown up in a Britain when children’s programmes meant those broadcast on the radio. Baby boomers might have had an early exposure to the comforting voice of that supreme storyteller Daphne Oxenford on Listen with Mother saying, ‘Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin,’ but, for most of us, children’s programmes meant what was on television.
In the 1950s, after graduating from Muffin the Mule, children found that their programmes quickly assumed a familiar schedule. Freda Lingstrom, who had devised Listen with Mother, became Head of Children’s Television and predictably converted her radio ratings smash into Watch with Mother, the umbrella title under which very British middle-class programmes prospered. It was The Woodentops on Mondays, Andy Pandy on Tuesdays, The Flower Pot Men on Wednesdays, Rag, Tag and Bobtail on Thursdays and whatever it was on Fridays was so unmemorable I’ve forgotten it. I think it might have been something called Picture Book. These programmes only lasted ten or fifteen minutes and they contained a lot of puppets with visible strings. Nevertheless, so far, so comforting and undoubtedly so uncontroversial.
Andy Pandy, The Flower Pot Men and The Woodentops were created by Lingstrom herself, aided by the writer-narrator Maria Bird, with whom she shared a home for four decades. In fact, the output was dominated by women: of the seven producers originally allocated to the department, four were female. Perhaps understandably, then, there was a significant maternal comfort to these BBC programmes, in marked contrast to the American ‘rubbish’ which dominated the ITV children’s schedule and with which Lingstrom refused to sully the BBC’s reputation.
Unfortunately, children preferred American cartoons like Huckleberry Hound and Popeye, to say nothing of Davy Crockett and the homemade Robin Hood. As BBC audiences switched wholesale to the newly formed ITV, the Corporation was forced to compete and soon the American series of westerns, The Cisco Kid, The Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy and Bronco came to dominate the schedules of BBC children’s television, much to the disgust of the now departed Lingstrom. There were still plenty of extremely good adaptations of classic books on the BBC – The Silver Sword, The Children of the New Forest and so on but there was a realisation by the Children’s department that they needed to innovate.
Like much else in this book it becomes apparent that as children’s programming began to expand its horizons in the 1960s, it attracted instant opprobrium. Doctor Who, which started in 1963, was an immediate hit with children but an object of terror for parents. Teenagers would happily spend many hours of a school day chanting ‘Exterminate, exterminate!’ with an arm stretched out in front to imitate a Dalek, but for pre-teen children whose parents thought they were getting a harmless science fiction adventure it quickly became an argumentative battleground. What had been regarded as the staple children’s programmes on the BBC – Billy Bunter of Greyfriars School, Captain Pugwash, Pinky and Perky, The Sooty Show and perhaps an adaptation of Ballet Shoes – were no longer enough. They were safe, they were entertaining, certainly, but they weren’t edgy. Doctor Who, for all its 99p special effects, captured children’s imaginations – which, the BBC could justifiably point out in its defence, was what its children’s programmes were supposed to do.
Alongside its drama there began in 1958 a programme that was still going strong sixty years later. It was a shame that a British pacifist organisation seemed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick ….
Peace Pledge Union, Endsleigh St., London WC1
22 July 1960
To: The Director General, British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting House W1
Dear Director General,
We have seen with much concern that the BBC are putting on a series of six programmes on television under the title ‘Blue Peter’. It would seem that the programme is a recruiting effort primarily designed to persuade young lads to enter the RAF. Like other recruiting methods it will doubtless appeal to youngsters and their love of adventure by showing all the attractive side of life in the RAF. May I ask whether it will also show the other side and make them aware of what the consequences might be of manning a fighter aircraft and still more a V-bomber carrying the H-bomb?
However much the programme may disguise the essential facts, it remains true that the end product of training in the RAF is violence. To accustom them to the worst form of warfare and even to make the H-bomb a symbol of adventurous service, is to do the gravest disservice to our young people.
Will the BBC give facilities for the pacifist appeal to be put to our young people and present a similar series which would appeal to their sense of adventure in ways which are beyond doubt beneficial to humanity and of positive service to the community?
Yours sincerely,
M.S.
Band of Hope Union, London SW1
3 November 1964
To: Sir Hugh Greene, K.C.M.G. O.B.E., Director General, B.B.C., Broadcasting House London W1
Dear Sir,
I am instructed by my chairman, Sir Cyril Black, M.P. to make urgent representations to you in the following matter.
On Thursday evening last in the ‘Blue Peter’ programme a recipe for Ginger Beer was given, and the children were invited to write for a copy of it. We understand 9,000 children applied for this recipe by first post Monday morning.
We have sought expert opinion on this particular recipe, and are satisfied that it is a brewing process which produces alcohol. The giving of this recipe to children of unspecified ages is, we respectfully submit, not only against the public interests but has a distinct element of danger.
We understand that this recipe is to be distributed in printed form by the end of the week and we make an urgent request to you to prevent this ill-considered action. The children and their parents would be quite mistaken in thinking that the resultant beverage produced by this recipe would be similar to that purchased legally and harmlessly in the shops.
We should be most grateful for an early reply as we would wish to delay further action until we hear from you.
I am, dear Sir,
Your obedient servant,
T.R.
Twickenham, Middlesex
20 December 1966
To: Mrs Doreen Stephens, [Head of Family Programmes] Television Centre, Wood Lane, W12
Dear Mrs. Stephens,
Last Saturday evening our two children, a boy aged 6 and a girl aged 4, watched the Dr. Who programme. This contained a sequence in which some of the main characters were threatened with hanging. I thought at the time that this part of the play lasted for a longer time than might be considered appropriate for a children’s programme.
The following morning I was shaken to find that the children had hanged one of their dollies. Neither child is handicapped or emotionally unstable.
Children will people their own phantasies [sic] with a good deal of what they see on television and this includes violence. They are unable to detect the discord of implausibility and are much more ready than adults to accept things at their face value. Most of the violence portrayed is two dimensional – there is little depth to the emotion generated in the audience. Criminology between paper covers may be amusing; in real life it is sordid and depressing.
In my view, for violence to be acceptable on television for family viewing, it must be shorn of those qualities of horror, gruesomeness and sinister connotations which characterise real life. Our children are not old enough to understand the meaning of death, far less the ritual of hanging. I would be surprised if it had any more significance for them than a game of cowboys and Indians. But it is a game my wife and I would rather they did not play – the hanging of dolls I mean.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. T.N.
London SW1
23 February 1968
To: Thelma Cazalet-Keir [BBC Governor 1957–1962]
Dear Thelma,
Forgive me bothering you, but I know you used to be connected with the BBC, and I do not know who else t
o contact. I am very concerned at the hour 5.30 till 6 that a programme called Dr. Who is put on the screen. Last week I turned on this programme and a few minutes before it ended with a view to seeing the News my daughter aged 3 was in the room and watched. At the end of the programme a vast – by adult standards – terrifying monster appeared on the screen. The child became quite rigid with terror and ever since that evening we have to take her all round the house, search behind curtains etc before she goes to bed. She believes this monster is in the house – often screams ‘Mama, mama don’t go out there that man will get you.’
At her age it is just as easy for a monster to appear mysteriously in the house as on the screen. What I feel is that as little children must often look at television before 6 o’clock this frightening programme should not be put on till a little bit later.
See you before too long I hope –
Yours ever
[Lady] T.A.
Wakefield, Yorkshire
9 December 1963
To: The Director General, British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Sir,
I am a parent of two boys aged 8 and 5. Last Saturday, I had the misfortune to view with my two boys what had in its first part promised to be a good adventure; Dr. Who. In its third broadcast it degenerated into a distasteful and horrific twenty-five minutes. A particularly horrible part was that where a man was mauled by an unseen but heard wild animal. It’s [sic] effect on my five-year-old may be of interest. He is not an unusually sensitive or emotional child, but the night following the programme was a very unhappy one for him. During the programme he was particularly disturbed, as I imagine would any child of five seeing a badly clawed person moaning in agony.
I really cannot understand why the Producer thought it necessary to include such a sadistic scene. Surely it is possible to find gripping adventure stories which do not contain this sort of American Horror Comic type of thing. James Hilton’s ‘Lost Horizon’ is an example.
What I am really curious about is the administrative machinery for deciding what is suitable for broadcasting when children of all ages are viewing. Judging by what was broadcast last Saturday between 5.15 and 5.40 this machinery needs badly overhauling.
Yours faithfully,
E. J. W.
Taunton, Somerset
29 September 1965
To: The Controller, Children’s Television, B.B.C. Television Centre, London W12
Dear Sir,
It was with a sinking feeling, superseded by something akin to disgust that I read of the return of the ‘Daleks’ in the serial ‘Dr.Who’. Once again, the B.B.C.’s policy of ‘If a programme appeals in it’s [sic] first showing, repeat it until it’s done to death’ is evident. It is my opinion that ‘Dr. Who’ in general and the Daleks in particular represent the very dregs of Children’s Television, and the fact that the programme does appeal to so many children is no excuse at all for repeatedly putting out such rubbish.
My husband wrote to you recently complaining of the low standard of Children’s Television, but received a vague reply which did nothing to explain this low standard. I speak as the mother of two young children, and I can remember the very excellent ‘Children’s Hour’ in ‘Uncle Mac’s’ heyday. I think that television could produce programmes on the lines of [BBC radio’s] ‘Nature Parliament’ and ‘Regional Round’. Then there are well-known and well-loved series such as ‘Toytown’. ‘Winnie-the-Pooh’ and ‘Said the Cat to the Dog’. You have all the recordings lying idle (and most grievously so).
Perhaps you could devote two half-hours a week to programmes for boys (railways, aeroplanes etc.) and girls, (ballet, nursing etc.). I realise the difficulties of catering for a wide and differing audience, but too often Children’s Television is put out to appeal to the masses, which means American cartoons and series, lots of pop music, and a generally poor standard. A bolder, better policy might attract far more viewers in the long run.
Yours faithfully,
P.M.P. (Mrs.)
Northfield, Birmingham
5 September 1967
To: The Head of Children’s Television, B.B.C. Television Centre, London W12
Dear Madam,
Some time ago I wrote to you to make several points of complaint about the Children’s programmes that the B.B.C. were putting out. Subsequently, there was some improvement, with fewer American importations and the introduction of ‘Jackanory’. Although it may have been accidental, my wife and I like to think we did have a hand in these changes. Since then the programmes have ranged from the good to the tolerable, but recently they have gone to rock-bottom.
On Sunday there was a repeat of ‘Pinky and Perky’ which my own daughters (aged 5 and 3) plainly recognised as a repeat and despised accordingly. On Monday there started a week’s ‘Jackanory’ about the Second World War. When this programme first began it was declared as being intended for the under-sevens: it seems to me either a sophisticated or a nasty way of telling them stories to describe ‘bombs falling and crushing them’. Gone are the naively innocent tales of Beatrix Potter and A.A. Milne and Rupert [the Bear]. Today, (Tuesday) your week hit rock-bottom. At a time when all six-year-olds might be expected to be watching, we were subjected to a new American cartoon; personally I consider this to be Trash. It is noisy and crudely done and it encourages all the worst excesses of American speech, linguist style and vulgar programming.
When my 6 year-old wrote to [conjuror and presenter] David Nixon in her best handwriting to say how much she likes his programmes and to ask for a photograph of Basil Brush, she did not receive so much as an acknowledgement. She has just recovered from the disappointment.
Yours faithfully,
M. P.
Northfield, Birmingham
23 March 1968
To: The Head of Children’s Television, B.B.C. Television Centre, London W12
Dear Madam,
Having just viewed this afternoon’s episode of ‘Dr. Who’ I feel I must write to you again on this subject. Both my husband and I have written to you before questioning the suitability of this serial for children’s viewing but I feel that this new story has entered a new area of unpleasantness. I am not against ‘monsters’ but the ‘humanised’ monsters such as the two men in to-night’s episode strike me as belonging to a different category – horror for its own sake; and this is deplorable as well as being very frightening. In our case the solution is simple – one turns off the set, but I am worried about the number of children who are subjected to this sort of horror.
I think it is fair comment to say that the lingering camera shots of a menacing man with a fixed stare and bared teeth, of a gaping maniacal laugh, come all too close to the psychological horror of Orwell, Huxley or the Marat/Sade.
I am aware of the arguments for retaining this serial; apparently some children do like it although on the evidence of my own and various friends’ children they can be terrified.
On a separate issue, may I again enquire if there is any hope of hearing the ‘Children’s Hour’ recordings of Winnie-the-Pooh? These gave me very great pleasure as a child and I feel sure that children today would derive equal enjoyment.
Yours faithfully,
P.M.P. (Mrs.)
Wootton, Northampton
28 October 1962
To: The Postmaster General, House of Commons, London SW1
Dear Sir,
I am gravely concerned about the choice of B.B.C. television children’s programmes at the weekend. After maintaining a reasonable standard through the week they are often poor on Saturday and worse on Sunday.
After taking my family to Church on Sunday morning and to Sunday School in the afternoon, I am very happy for the children to see ten minutes of ‘Sooty’ type entertainment. But on the last two Sunday afternoons, failure to switch off promptly afterwards has confronted them with the spectacle of
a) a grinning corpse with a knife handle protruding from its chest, and
b) a close-up of a man receiving a sickening blow on the head; these were the opening scenes of instalments of a serial entitled ‘The River Flows East’.
It may be that there is a place for this type of programme, but not at this time of day and not on a Sunday.
In my home the only result is the frustration of children deprived of expected entertainment. In other homes, irreparable damage may be caused to the minds of a rising generation. Children are being conditioned to accept violence as commonplace.
Is there any chance you can influence the Corporation in its choice of children’s programme?
Yours faithfully,
G.D.S.
Cardiff
18 October 1959
To: The Director General, British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting House, London W1
Dear Sir,
I have until now resisted the inclination to write to you concerning the increasing amount of American material shown on B.B.C. Television.
I feel however I must protest at the disgusting sadism and brutality portrayed in the first of a new series called ‘Laramie’. We all know that the cinema industry is using this type of material at present in an attempt to halt the fall in attendances, but I would have preferred that the B.B.C. would refuse to set its sights at such a low level.
I am thinking in particular of the clubbing of a man – already on the ground – with a vicious blow from a rifle butt. The sound track emphasized the force, and if anyone believes a normal skull would withstand such an impact, the result may well be lethal.
Many parents of broad and progressive outlook, welcoming the treatment of many social problems in your excellent manner, are nevertheless being compelled to prohibit TV westerns in their family circles. Surely [early Hollywood silent cowboy star] Tom Mix and his old friends could entertain, thrill and excite us without disgust? Why not those who fill the screens of today?
Yours faithfully,
A.L.H.
B.Sc., A.B.Ps.S., A.M.B.I.M.
Atherstone, Warwickshire
13 October 1961
To: R.A. Butler M.P., House of Commons, London SW
Dear Sir,
I'm Sure I Speak For Many Others... Page 2
