London Line (colour) 1967 : Primary Market the United States
London Line (colour) programs that can viewed on line are highlighed in red.
London Line (in black and white) had been produced and distributed to Canada and other countries of the Commonwealth since 1964, in the USA the British Information Services (BIS) New York, the media arm of the British Embassy in Washington had continued receiving and distributing Calendar also in black and white. In 1965 BIS New York began to consider the possibility of requesting Calendar in colour as more and more television stations in the USA began colour transmitions.
In 1966 an experiment was conducted whereby an issue of Calendar was produced in colour. At the same time BIS New York was also attracted to the format of London Line copies of which had been sent to them. But only if the programs were produced in colour.
There was considerable discussion, centering on the necessity, as perceived by BIS, of making a London Line program which would be understood by, and acceptable in the American television market given that the program presenters would be British. Film Division noted that Canadian television stations had been and were transmitting London Line very happily and without any of the qualms raised by BIS New York.
Because of the particular concern and importance of the USA it was decided that Adam Leys who was the Producer of London Line should make a trip both to New York and other parts of the USA to become familiar with the nature of US television. His account of that visit and of the setting up of London Line (colour) follows below.
Such was the concern about ensuring that the concept and execution of this new program would be acceptable to BIS New York and to television stations, another first in the history of Film Division took place. It was the production of two “pilot” programs. The purpose was to enable BIS to see examples of exactly what was being proposed. It would also enable BIS to show it to a few television stations and get their reactions. Production of pilot programs was a common practice in the US television industry.
The reaction to the “pilots” was very positive both from BIS and the television stations. So plans were put in hand for the production and distribution of London Line to the United States in September 1967. The story of this venture is one of a roller coaster. To assist in telling it Adam Leys who was the Producer provided his memories, a first hand account.
Adam Leys writes:
Around 1966 things started to change. We knew that Britain was going to start television transmissions in colour, but knew also that the problem of standards conversion on videotape had not really changed – we were sending each week recorded programs to countries with at least two different television colour systems, with the Canadians on NTSC, colloquially known as Never Twice The Same Colour . The USA had been the first with a colour television system and it was great in the studio, but often unstable at the point of reception. The Australians had adopted the same system as the UK, PAL - Peace at Last, so-called because the French had in the meantime launched their own system, SECAM, known unkindly as Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method. We clearly had to go into colour, but on film. Someone (Bill Stewart at Granville Studios) heard of the Gemini system, a strange looking system which attached film cameras to studio black and white television cameras, so that you could use a regular black and white television studio, but record the output in colour. Strangely, this weird system worked
At the same time British Information Services New York (BIS NY), indicated they were interested in having a program similar to the one we were making for Canada and Australia, but geared for the US market, and in colour. This seemed interesting to everyone, and we on the program felt it was quite an endorsement of what we had been doing.
BIS NY wanted to be sure that the program makers understood the USA market, and I went to the USA for an exploratory trip, to learn. I had a great time, and was very kindly looked after by Alan Waple, the man in charge of television at BIS in New York. I visited all sorts of people in New York, and then went on a great trip to Chicago, rented a car and went on a trip for three days to visit small television stations, to get a sense of their interests and prejudices. BIS had insisted that I make this trip to learn that New York is not typical of the US. I then discovered that the BIS staff, Waple included, had never made a trip like mine, and seldom went outside New York.
I was treated with unfailing politeness everywhere I went, and with some excited curiosity. I had longish hair like everyone in London, and a neat line in flowery ties, but the hair and the ties were regarded as amazingly way out and daring by conservative America. I drove across the mid-west bible belt, with those huge billboards with bible slogans on them, erected by the farm owner at the turning from the main road to his distant farm. I visited a village called Battleground, named for a 19th century battle between the US cavalry and a ‘Indian’ tribe, resulting in the deaths of many of the cavalry – the number of Indian deaths was not recorded. In the graveyard were the graves of the first settlers in the mid-19th C, small children and old people first, and then later the graves of young men dead in wars with Mexico before the end of the century, speeded up civilization.
In one small town I asked the television station manager how many staff he had. He looked at a sheet on the wall and counted 21 names, including the cleaner. In Peoria, which is the archetypal small town in American lore (“The show closed in Peoria”), a town of about 2-3,000 people in those days, there was a television station where the station manager’s secretary told me that no, she hadn’t always lived in Peoria, but had moved “to the big city” a couple of years before.
I was learning a lot about the USA. But I also learned that they were, of course very much like us in so many ways, and even more insular. It was a huge country, with lots of interest in it, and they weren’t on the whole very interested in what happened in Britain. The Royal Family, Wimbledon, a juicy murder perhaps, but not politics, or industry, or anything which challenged them too much. The program content was going to have be nicely balanced between our two audiences, the demands of our paymasters and those of our television schedulers. In this case the paymasters were effectively in BIS NY, and were focused in the person of Alan Waple.
I don’t think I realised then the history behind him, when in previous times BIS NY had been a production centre in its own right, re-cutting material sent from London and voicing it with US voices. I think Waple wanted that sort of control again. What was agreed seemed like something to get him off our backs in London, but it was fatal. It was agreed that each week we would send him the draft script so that in New York they could make sure we weren’t using words or phrases which would be misunderstood in the US, like ‘rubber’ meaning a condom, that sort of thing. I remember he had a neurosis about saying things “were pretty short..” or pretty anything, the use of the word pretty in that sense being ‘unknown’ in the US.
A member of staff was taken on by Film Division to assist in the liaison with New York, Jenny Lucas, who had lived in the US and worked there for the Consulate in Chicago. This was in the days before email, and the only way to send the script was by telex. The COI had big telex facilities because it sent out lots of press material to overseas posts by that method, but it meant having the script ready at least two days earlier than we wanted, and having the whole thing re-typed by the telex operators and sent (at telex speed, much, much slower than email) to New York. Then we waited while they read it and sent back their comments.
What BIS sent back, of course, was a re-write. The whole of their telex, yards of it, would be pinned up on the office noticeboard while we studied it, and then the rows began. I would protest to John Hall that what New York was doing was not what was agreed, that the changes they were making were often unworkable and damaging, and that the whole process was totally undermining of me and my team.
John would try to calm me, talk to his bosses and to the FCO, talk to New York, etc. We would achieve some compromises, but it was a stupid way to go on.
Eventually BIS NY lost interest in the program. It achieved good distribution, given that it was trying to break in to the gaps in a highly developed if fragmented television system, but I think Waple believed he was going to have some smash hit on his hands. As he lost interest and left us alone, the programs got better, but it was too late for BIS New York even though we continued in production for another two years.
The resources required to produce a weekly program, not only the colour edition for North America but also four further editions for other parts of the world were considerable particularly in terms of people. The photograph below takes in about half the staff involved over the 5 editions.
Front row (l to r) presenters Howard Williams, Mike Smee, Ian Morrison
Second row (l to r) Granville Studio owner Bill Stewart, researchers Jenny Lucas, Margaret O'Donald
Executive Producer John Hall, Unknown, Director Bob Morgan, Unkown PA
Third row centre: Producer Adam Leys
Forth row (l to r) Unkown asst. Muriel Elliott Assistant Production Manager, Chuck Despins Film editor
Unknown x 3, Cliff Boote supervising film editor Names of the rest of the people are unknown.
Second row (l to r) Granville Studio owner Bill Stewart, researchers Jenny Lucas, Margaret O'Donald
Executive Producer John Hall, Unknown, Director Bob Morgan, Unkown PA
Third row centre: Producer Adam Leys
Forth row (l to r) Unkown asst. Muriel Elliott Assistant Production Manager, Chuck Despins Film editor
Unknown x 3, Cliff Boote supervising film editor Names of the rest of the people are unknown.
Only a few production stills exist of the programs, this one is of setting up the Granville Studio for a shoot.
In this picture Mike Smee is interviewing Mary Quant the leading fashion designer of the day
Here Stirling Moss the leading racing driver is being talking to a London Line presenter
|
A number of up and coming music bands appeared in London Line including Pink Floyd, Dire Straits and Gerry and the Pacemakers in this picture
John Hall writes:
Adam’s vivid account of the rise and fall of London Line in the United States also demonstrated that it was possible to produce a lively magazine television program that was acceptable to US television stations and their audiences evidenced by the viewers letters. Each program ended with a caption asking people to write into a London PO Box number if there was anything more they would like to know about Britain.
Though the final result of the disagreements with BIS New York were very regrettable when they decided not to continue to distribute the program. It should not overshadow the many achievements of Adam and his team.
Some 90 programs were produced and distributed in the United States on a considerable range of subjects and on a weekly schedule.
These programs were also, of course, the first television programs produced in colour by Film Division. To provide an indication of the average program content some examples are:
London Line (colour) 1(click here to view from BFI) the first program produced in September 1967 was well received in New York. It consisted of 4 items. The first was a piece about the mini car, that was all the rage at the time. In the studio was a minicar painted overall with a Union Jack that was destined to be on display at the International Expo in Montreal.The second item as about a new fashions in clothes to be seen in London. Followed by an interview with Richard Marsh then Minister of Power about the imminent start of oil extraction in the North Sea that was to become an important economic asset for Britain. Finally an entertainment piece celebrating "swinging London" . The band of Gerry and the Pacemakers performed. They were soon to become internationally famous. Taken together the program provided a mix of stories about industry, energy development and entertainment in Britain.
London Line (colour) 16 (click here to view from BFI) included an item "Backing Britain" that was about a campaign to improve UK productivity, important to the economic situation of the time. A story about a new type of navigational light to guide ships powered by a nuclear fuel using ripple isotopes. Followed by an item exploring the nature of sound using the science of electronics in the context of music. London Line listened to recent electronic music compositions and talked to composer Tristram Carey.
London Line (colour) 40 (click here to view from BFI)lead with a story about the quality of air in London some ten years after the introduction of the Clean air Act of 1956. Reporter Ian Morrison on the effect of the act in getting rid of frequent fogs and air pollution.. Followed by a story about babies born with a Rhesus Negative blood condition that often killed the child. A new serum had been developed by Dr Phillip Sheppard and Professor Cyril Clarke of Liverpool University that prevented the disease.
London Line(colour) 71 (click here to view from BFI) Ian Morrison visits Burns Night.
London Line (colour series 2) 1 was the first of a second series that commenced after the withdrawal of the USA. It consisted of a lead story about the new Cunard Liner Queen Elisabeth 2 undergoing sea trials. Followed by an interview with Peter Shore Secretary of State for Economic Affairs concluding an item about music conductor Colin Davis.
London Line (colour series 2) 2 presenter Mike Smee investigated the background to the decision of the people of Gibraltar to fight to stay British . followed by a story about the use of the "hover" technology for an army vehicle. Music in the studio was provided by Procol Harum playing "A Whiter shade of Pale".
The 90 programs in the London Line (colour) series 1 and 2 covered a huge range of subjects and interviewed many personalities across industry, politics and the arts and entertainment.
They ranged from Mary Quant, Sir Vivien Fuchs of the Antartic Survey, Tony Benn Secretary of State for Technology, Peter Shore Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Professor Fred Hoyle Astronomer Royal to Stirling Moss the Formula I racing car driver.
While the first series for BIS New York starting in September 1967 appeared to go well for the first weeks, the situation as indicated earlier, deteriorated so that by the Spring of 1968 BIS indicated that the series did not meet its information objectives. They said that they wished to discontinue using the series. So by the autumn of the same year after some 65 programs the final program was sent to New York
While the programs had been well received by television stations, producing the programs to the satisfaction of BIS New York ran into the problems outlined by Adam Leys. It was a rare instance of a situation where, over a period of time, Film Division had produced programs with which the Post became more and more dissatisfied. The outcome of this dissatisfaction was to lead to considerable upheaval and change. In the meantime the series went on being produced since Posts such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English speaking countries liked and were happy to continue to take the programs that were well received by the television stations..
Looking back on events from a distance of 60 years or so I believe (John Hall writes) that the eventual failure of the project to meet the approval of BIS was due to a mixture of problems. The understanding by my colleagues and myself was that BIS had bought into London Line with the style and range of content that had been produced for Canada and other countries for some two years. This understanding had been reinforced by the production of the pilot programs before the new series went into regular production.
As the series unfolded during the early months of production there appeared to develop a change in the purpose that BIS wanted London Line to serve. This change suggested a wish to shift the emphasis of the program from the existing balance of hard and soft information items to one containing significantly more hard information. Change would, in effect, be a move toward a weekly program on political and economic issues with a coating of light or soft information.
There were no formal discussions between Film Division and BIS that might have clearly revealed or defined these different aspirations. Only in the early months of 1968 when BIS indicated that it wished to discontinue London Line on the grounds that it was not meeting the required information objectives of BIS did Film Division really become aware of the change of direction.
The desire for more hard information was not specifically communicated to me or to my colleagues. It was not, I am sure, that BIS did not want to communicate a message of this nature, but, I believe they were not entirely clear themselves from the outset about their overall objective for the program. In itself not a totally uncommon event in sponsored film production.
It was not a case that Film Division were delivering a different program than that envisaged in the pilot programs. It was that BIS began to see that the programs were not what they really wanted. My belief, with no specific evidence to support it, is that this was a shifting of view, not of BIS in the shape of Alan Waple, but the gradually shifting, or perhaps, sharpening, of the view of the then Director General of BIS Paul Wright
Here the question of personalities comes in, the personalities of Alan Waple and Paul Wright. Speculation about the attitudes and the thinking of personalities is always hazardous and my speculations may well be inaccurate.
It was Alan Waple who had preceded my own two years at BIS and then replaced me when I left to return to the UK. We did not have any handover either when I went to New York or on my leaving. He was, to me, something of a mystery figure, we never met and spoke only occasionally on the telephone.
While I was in BIS in1959 British Calendar had commenced production. From the outset it was conceived as a program that could be distributed in many language versions. It was agreed that in the case of BIS New York special considerations about language and editing style meant that it would be sensible for the program to be fine edited, with a script written and voiced in an idiom familiar to US television stations. I had made production arrangements accordingly .
Alan Waple had taken over these arrangements on his return to BIS. Effectively the end product of British Calendar was a BIS production. During the years from 1960 until 1964 when I produced British Calendar in Film Division there was relatively little contact with Alan Waple. The choice of subjects was down to me with occasional input from the OIS departments. The programs were sent to New York with a suggested script in a form that enabled BIS to shape the finished program as they felt necessary.
From its inception in 1959 up to 1967 British Calendar had always been a fairly lightweight program, given its origins in the world of newsreels with only occasional forays into what might be termed ‘hard’ or political information.
When arrangements for London Line were being made it was accepted that BIS would have sight of the proposed scripts simply to check for words or expressions that would not be familiar to American audiences. This was of course a different proposition to the control that Alan Waple had exercised over British Calendar. However he was our immediate point of contact.
Adam Leys has described earlier the friction that built up quite quickly when instead of pointing to some words or phrases that might jar on American ears, substantial amounts of re-writing took place. In effect, possibly, the nature of the re-writing that had taken place with British Calendar. This scale and quantity of change was not at all appropriate to the new series.
When London Line commenced distribution, it appeared to attract the attention of Paul Wright who was not only DG of BIS he was also the Ambassador’s Press Secretary and divided his time between New York and Washington. He was a very senior figure in the Embassy. As such his main focus would have been on policy/political matters between the UK and the USA.
The London Line series, with its new presentational format would have been mentioned to him with, no doubt, predictions about what the series might achieve in terms of information objectives. British Calendar had started up and had been in distribution for several years before Paul Wright was appointed. As an existing, relatively low cost information vehicle, it would not have attracted much of his attention. Certainly during my time in BIS the then DG showed nothing more than a passing interest in British Calendar.
It was a matter of some surprise to Adam and his colleagues to find that Paul Wright became involved in some of the many telephone exchanges that took place in the autumn of 1967. It was a reasonable expectation that Alan Waple as the person in charge of the BIS television operation would represent BIS views or in some circumstances Rodney Chalk as Director of the Film and Radio Division. But to have the DG with his responsibilities in both New York and Washington spending time going through program scripts seemed very odd indeed.
I believe the explanation was that Paul Wright came to appraise the program against his view of the information objectives of the Embassy and found it wanting. The difficulty was that this view or appraisal, which probably evolved over several weeks, was one that he did not articulate or convey to those of us in London attempting to make the programs.
As Adam Leys noted earlier, the differing perceptions between New York and Film Division led to difficult and verbose communications on matters of detail conducted by telephone and telex. These revolved around the scripts for programs that COI were asked to send to BIS for comment on meaning and understanding (Bernard Shaw’s comment about the barrier of a common language is apposite). The process became onerous in the extreme for the COI production team and Adam Leys in particular. As a method of producing programs to a weekly schedule it was simply not sustainable.
Film Division took the position that BIS had shifted the goal posts by seeking to change the thrust of the programs. This disagreement and the eventual wish by BIS to discontinue use of the program had many implications for the whole of the London Line operation including the subsidiary programs. There would need to be some sort of hard look at what had happened.
London Line (colour) ceased production in 1969 as part of the reorganisation of the Overseas Television Services following a review of the Overseas Television Services . The last program in the series was London Line (colour series 2) 77. It was also the last program in the associated Latin-American and Arabic versions of Acqui Londres and Adwa Wa Aswat. London Line (Africa) continued in a shorter format.
For details of all those programs for which information exists please go to The films We made on the Navigation Bar.
The detailed information about all the programs is incomplete due to poor record keeping by COI. If any viewer has more information about these programs it would be very helpful to know about it. Please make contact through our web site email address at Contact Us on the Navigation Bar.
The decision to cease production of these programs was of a matter of considerable concern within COI who prided itself on its ability to meet the requirements of Posts in all media. The main reason for stopping all these programs was the decision by BIS New York to discontinue using London Line. Much of the justification for producing London Line in colour lay in the use of the program in the USA, without this market the financial justification fell. Thus while Posts in Canada and elsewhere wished to see the programs continue the costs of making the series without the distribution in the United States was not sustainable.
The management of COI advised the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that such was the seriousness of the situation that there should be a full investigation into the whole of the official television services as there might be problems elsewhere.
Thus a Sub-Committee of the Official Committee on the Information Services (OIS) was set up by the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office. The first meeting took place on 25 March 1968 with Mr R Mc C Samples, Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Commonwealth Relations Office as Chair and with representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, the Board of Trade, the BBC External Services and the British Council as members. The COI was represented by Donald Kerr Overseas Controller, Raylton Fleming Assistant Overseas Controller and John Hall Head of Overseas Television Production Film and Television Division.
The Sub-Committee met several times gathering evidence from members of the Committee and others. Mr Samples wrote a very comprehensive report including a number recommendations that were duly accepted.
The Committee had some sympathy with the COI position vis-à-vis BIS New York. The key paragraphs in the report in respect of London Line were as follows:
Looking back it is difficult to see that the judgement of the parties concerned with the decision to put “London Line” into regular production can be faulted. Everyone had known for a number of years that colour television was developing , rapidly and a period of experimenting in colour production with the established program “British Calendar” and a new program “London Line” was sensible preliminary step. BIS New York must have had a close knowledge of the requirements of USA and television stations after distributing “British Calendar” successfully to them for 5 years and by the end reaching 140 stations weekly.
Furthermore, it had always seemed to some unrealistic that separate programs should be produced for the USA and Canada and the decision to produce only one was a sensible rationalization. The pooling of production made it possible for the new program to be produced weekly whereas the greatest frequency ever achieved for “British Calendar” was 39 issues in a year. Finally in assessing the decision to produce “London Line” weekly in colour it must be said that those who took the decision knew the kind of programming they were going to get since, as described above, it already existed as an experimental series in Canada.
Two pilot programs were produced and discussed thoroughly amongst the interested parties. The series was launched on schedule in late September 1967 and BIS New York promotion started a little later. Within two months the number of stations taking the program in the USA was about 90, but in the absence of any promotion beyond the initial campaign this number has now fallen to 60-70. It is worth noting that “British Calendar” did not reach 90 stations until 2 to3 years after its launching. Distribution in Canada is to 41 stations with an estimated audience (BIS Ottawa) of 2 million viewers. There is a run-on distribution in New Zealand and a number of other small territories.
One member of the Committee (Howard Thomas, Managing director of ABC Television) has said that it should be possible to analyse the effectiveness of COI television programs on a “cost per thousand” basis. This an advertising measurement which is not normally applied to information activity. However, COI have tabled a paper that gives the cost per thousand for “London Line” on its present distribution of 16s.9d. In COI’s view this calculation is based on a considerable under-estimate of the number of viewers since it takes no account of repeat transmissions of which there are undoubtedly a great number.A Committee (member) with expert knowledge on this subject thought that the figure calculated by COI is “very reasonable”.
We have set out the above since for the most part it is a matter of record. The fact remains that BIS New York do not any longer want “London Line”. They have given their reasons in detail and the Minister (Information) has given his views to the Committee. From his evidence it seems clear that BIS New York now wish to concentrate their television activities on reaching the mass audience in the cheapest and most direct ways possible. They recommend an increase of COI news material that is taken by networks and distributed to their subscribers, and a new effort to interest the networks in stories from Britain and if necessary to help them in producing such stories.
Clearly these approaches have merit but neither is strictly an alternative to the original conception of “London Line” which by definition, was intended to appeal to a minority “serious minded” audience. The Committee accepts the Ambassador’s recommendation that “London Line” should cease distribution in the United States.
It is clear that any future project of this magnitude must guaranteed a minimum period of one year, and if possible longer, before any decision is made about its future.
In a Minute dated 12 August 1968 Donald Kerr the COI Controller (Overseas) looked back on the working of the Sub-Committee and its Report and made the following comment:
COI had two aims. The first was to get the Sub-Committee to look at every aspect of our television work in the confident expectation that we would come out of it well and get better understanding and support in the future. The second was that we wanted a report which would give us and the Overseas Departments guide lines for a pattern of official television work for at least two years ahead and perhaps longer. I think we achieved both aims. The Sub-Committee also agreed with our view that the report should not be influenced by the possibility of cuts being made in the estimates for 1969-70 and 1970-71 which might necessitate reductions in our television services.
The enquiry was conducted in a very civilized and relaxed fashion which made possible the cut and thrust of debate – there was some quite blunt speaking on occasion –without which I do not think all the truths about policy and operations would have come out, let alone be recorded in the report. For this, considerable credit must go to the Chairman, Mr Samples
So in the end the Sub Committee and COI had to accept the wishes of BIS New York to discontinue use of the program with the consequence that the London Line (colour) series was discontinued for the USA in September 1968.
The demise of London Line (colour) was a considerable disappointment given the extent of the effort that had been expended. However it was to lead to new and ambitious directions both in terms of production and also of distribution. The latter issue was to question of the way in which television programs, serving the interests of the UK Overseas Information Services, were distributed and transmitted by television stations around the world.
Looking at the implications of Samples Report for the Overseas Television Services in the autumn of 1968 it was clear that a great many changes would have to be made together with some rapid thinking about new programs and structures. COI also noted key lines in the Samples Report.
They (BIS New York) recommend an increase of COI news material that is taken by networks and distributed to their subscribers, and a new effort to interest the networks in stories from Britain and if necessary to help them in producing such stories. This recommendation, while perfectly sensible by itself, was a move away from using programs as a means of utilizing television opportunities for information purposes to that of relying on individual news stories as a means of conveying hard information material. It was a scattergun approach since securing transmission of news stories depended wholly on the news events of the day. It did however lead to a growth in the amount of news material within the Overseas Television Services that became the London Television News Feature Service. It was this service that largely became the repository of "political" or hard information material for television.
New series such as Living Tomorrow , Pacemaker and others would appear to take the place of London Line.
If anyone has any more information or memories about this series please write in through "Contact Us"
Adam’s vivid account of the rise and fall of London Line in the United States also demonstrated that it was possible to produce a lively magazine television program that was acceptable to US television stations and their audiences evidenced by the viewers letters. Each program ended with a caption asking people to write into a London PO Box number if there was anything more they would like to know about Britain.
Though the final result of the disagreements with BIS New York were very regrettable when they decided not to continue to distribute the program. It should not overshadow the many achievements of Adam and his team.
Some 90 programs were produced and distributed in the United States on a considerable range of subjects and on a weekly schedule.
These programs were also, of course, the first television programs produced in colour by Film Division. To provide an indication of the average program content some examples are:
London Line (colour) 1(click here to view from BFI) the first program produced in September 1967 was well received in New York. It consisted of 4 items. The first was a piece about the mini car, that was all the rage at the time. In the studio was a minicar painted overall with a Union Jack that was destined to be on display at the International Expo in Montreal.The second item as about a new fashions in clothes to be seen in London. Followed by an interview with Richard Marsh then Minister of Power about the imminent start of oil extraction in the North Sea that was to become an important economic asset for Britain. Finally an entertainment piece celebrating "swinging London" . The band of Gerry and the Pacemakers performed. They were soon to become internationally famous. Taken together the program provided a mix of stories about industry, energy development and entertainment in Britain.
London Line (colour) 16 (click here to view from BFI) included an item "Backing Britain" that was about a campaign to improve UK productivity, important to the economic situation of the time. A story about a new type of navigational light to guide ships powered by a nuclear fuel using ripple isotopes. Followed by an item exploring the nature of sound using the science of electronics in the context of music. London Line listened to recent electronic music compositions and talked to composer Tristram Carey.
London Line (colour) 40 (click here to view from BFI)lead with a story about the quality of air in London some ten years after the introduction of the Clean air Act of 1956. Reporter Ian Morrison on the effect of the act in getting rid of frequent fogs and air pollution.. Followed by a story about babies born with a Rhesus Negative blood condition that often killed the child. A new serum had been developed by Dr Phillip Sheppard and Professor Cyril Clarke of Liverpool University that prevented the disease.
London Line(colour) 71 (click here to view from BFI) Ian Morrison visits Burns Night.
London Line (colour series 2) 1 was the first of a second series that commenced after the withdrawal of the USA. It consisted of a lead story about the new Cunard Liner Queen Elisabeth 2 undergoing sea trials. Followed by an interview with Peter Shore Secretary of State for Economic Affairs concluding an item about music conductor Colin Davis.
London Line (colour series 2) 2 presenter Mike Smee investigated the background to the decision of the people of Gibraltar to fight to stay British . followed by a story about the use of the "hover" technology for an army vehicle. Music in the studio was provided by Procol Harum playing "A Whiter shade of Pale".
The 90 programs in the London Line (colour) series 1 and 2 covered a huge range of subjects and interviewed many personalities across industry, politics and the arts and entertainment.
They ranged from Mary Quant, Sir Vivien Fuchs of the Antartic Survey, Tony Benn Secretary of State for Technology, Peter Shore Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Professor Fred Hoyle Astronomer Royal to Stirling Moss the Formula I racing car driver.
While the first series for BIS New York starting in September 1967 appeared to go well for the first weeks, the situation as indicated earlier, deteriorated so that by the Spring of 1968 BIS indicated that the series did not meet its information objectives. They said that they wished to discontinue using the series. So by the autumn of the same year after some 65 programs the final program was sent to New York
While the programs had been well received by television stations, producing the programs to the satisfaction of BIS New York ran into the problems outlined by Adam Leys. It was a rare instance of a situation where, over a period of time, Film Division had produced programs with which the Post became more and more dissatisfied. The outcome of this dissatisfaction was to lead to considerable upheaval and change. In the meantime the series went on being produced since Posts such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other English speaking countries liked and were happy to continue to take the programs that were well received by the television stations..
Looking back on events from a distance of 60 years or so I believe (John Hall writes) that the eventual failure of the project to meet the approval of BIS was due to a mixture of problems. The understanding by my colleagues and myself was that BIS had bought into London Line with the style and range of content that had been produced for Canada and other countries for some two years. This understanding had been reinforced by the production of the pilot programs before the new series went into regular production.
As the series unfolded during the early months of production there appeared to develop a change in the purpose that BIS wanted London Line to serve. This change suggested a wish to shift the emphasis of the program from the existing balance of hard and soft information items to one containing significantly more hard information. Change would, in effect, be a move toward a weekly program on political and economic issues with a coating of light or soft information.
There were no formal discussions between Film Division and BIS that might have clearly revealed or defined these different aspirations. Only in the early months of 1968 when BIS indicated that it wished to discontinue London Line on the grounds that it was not meeting the required information objectives of BIS did Film Division really become aware of the change of direction.
The desire for more hard information was not specifically communicated to me or to my colleagues. It was not, I am sure, that BIS did not want to communicate a message of this nature, but, I believe they were not entirely clear themselves from the outset about their overall objective for the program. In itself not a totally uncommon event in sponsored film production.
It was not a case that Film Division were delivering a different program than that envisaged in the pilot programs. It was that BIS began to see that the programs were not what they really wanted. My belief, with no specific evidence to support it, is that this was a shifting of view, not of BIS in the shape of Alan Waple, but the gradually shifting, or perhaps, sharpening, of the view of the then Director General of BIS Paul Wright
Here the question of personalities comes in, the personalities of Alan Waple and Paul Wright. Speculation about the attitudes and the thinking of personalities is always hazardous and my speculations may well be inaccurate.
It was Alan Waple who had preceded my own two years at BIS and then replaced me when I left to return to the UK. We did not have any handover either when I went to New York or on my leaving. He was, to me, something of a mystery figure, we never met and spoke only occasionally on the telephone.
While I was in BIS in1959 British Calendar had commenced production. From the outset it was conceived as a program that could be distributed in many language versions. It was agreed that in the case of BIS New York special considerations about language and editing style meant that it would be sensible for the program to be fine edited, with a script written and voiced in an idiom familiar to US television stations. I had made production arrangements accordingly .
Alan Waple had taken over these arrangements on his return to BIS. Effectively the end product of British Calendar was a BIS production. During the years from 1960 until 1964 when I produced British Calendar in Film Division there was relatively little contact with Alan Waple. The choice of subjects was down to me with occasional input from the OIS departments. The programs were sent to New York with a suggested script in a form that enabled BIS to shape the finished program as they felt necessary.
From its inception in 1959 up to 1967 British Calendar had always been a fairly lightweight program, given its origins in the world of newsreels with only occasional forays into what might be termed ‘hard’ or political information.
When arrangements for London Line were being made it was accepted that BIS would have sight of the proposed scripts simply to check for words or expressions that would not be familiar to American audiences. This was of course a different proposition to the control that Alan Waple had exercised over British Calendar. However he was our immediate point of contact.
Adam Leys has described earlier the friction that built up quite quickly when instead of pointing to some words or phrases that might jar on American ears, substantial amounts of re-writing took place. In effect, possibly, the nature of the re-writing that had taken place with British Calendar. This scale and quantity of change was not at all appropriate to the new series.
When London Line commenced distribution, it appeared to attract the attention of Paul Wright who was not only DG of BIS he was also the Ambassador’s Press Secretary and divided his time between New York and Washington. He was a very senior figure in the Embassy. As such his main focus would have been on policy/political matters between the UK and the USA.
The London Line series, with its new presentational format would have been mentioned to him with, no doubt, predictions about what the series might achieve in terms of information objectives. British Calendar had started up and had been in distribution for several years before Paul Wright was appointed. As an existing, relatively low cost information vehicle, it would not have attracted much of his attention. Certainly during my time in BIS the then DG showed nothing more than a passing interest in British Calendar.
It was a matter of some surprise to Adam and his colleagues to find that Paul Wright became involved in some of the many telephone exchanges that took place in the autumn of 1967. It was a reasonable expectation that Alan Waple as the person in charge of the BIS television operation would represent BIS views or in some circumstances Rodney Chalk as Director of the Film and Radio Division. But to have the DG with his responsibilities in both New York and Washington spending time going through program scripts seemed very odd indeed.
I believe the explanation was that Paul Wright came to appraise the program against his view of the information objectives of the Embassy and found it wanting. The difficulty was that this view or appraisal, which probably evolved over several weeks, was one that he did not articulate or convey to those of us in London attempting to make the programs.
As Adam Leys noted earlier, the differing perceptions between New York and Film Division led to difficult and verbose communications on matters of detail conducted by telephone and telex. These revolved around the scripts for programs that COI were asked to send to BIS for comment on meaning and understanding (Bernard Shaw’s comment about the barrier of a common language is apposite). The process became onerous in the extreme for the COI production team and Adam Leys in particular. As a method of producing programs to a weekly schedule it was simply not sustainable.
Film Division took the position that BIS had shifted the goal posts by seeking to change the thrust of the programs. This disagreement and the eventual wish by BIS to discontinue use of the program had many implications for the whole of the London Line operation including the subsidiary programs. There would need to be some sort of hard look at what had happened.
London Line (colour) ceased production in 1969 as part of the reorganisation of the Overseas Television Services following a review of the Overseas Television Services . The last program in the series was London Line (colour series 2) 77. It was also the last program in the associated Latin-American and Arabic versions of Acqui Londres and Adwa Wa Aswat. London Line (Africa) continued in a shorter format.
For details of all those programs for which information exists please go to The films We made on the Navigation Bar.
The detailed information about all the programs is incomplete due to poor record keeping by COI. If any viewer has more information about these programs it would be very helpful to know about it. Please make contact through our web site email address at Contact Us on the Navigation Bar.
The decision to cease production of these programs was of a matter of considerable concern within COI who prided itself on its ability to meet the requirements of Posts in all media. The main reason for stopping all these programs was the decision by BIS New York to discontinue using London Line. Much of the justification for producing London Line in colour lay in the use of the program in the USA, without this market the financial justification fell. Thus while Posts in Canada and elsewhere wished to see the programs continue the costs of making the series without the distribution in the United States was not sustainable.
The management of COI advised the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that such was the seriousness of the situation that there should be a full investigation into the whole of the official television services as there might be problems elsewhere.
Thus a Sub-Committee of the Official Committee on the Information Services (OIS) was set up by the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office. The first meeting took place on 25 March 1968 with Mr R Mc C Samples, Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Commonwealth Relations Office as Chair and with representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, the Board of Trade, the BBC External Services and the British Council as members. The COI was represented by Donald Kerr Overseas Controller, Raylton Fleming Assistant Overseas Controller and John Hall Head of Overseas Television Production Film and Television Division.
The Sub-Committee met several times gathering evidence from members of the Committee and others. Mr Samples wrote a very comprehensive report including a number recommendations that were duly accepted.
The Committee had some sympathy with the COI position vis-à-vis BIS New York. The key paragraphs in the report in respect of London Line were as follows:
Looking back it is difficult to see that the judgement of the parties concerned with the decision to put “London Line” into regular production can be faulted. Everyone had known for a number of years that colour television was developing , rapidly and a period of experimenting in colour production with the established program “British Calendar” and a new program “London Line” was sensible preliminary step. BIS New York must have had a close knowledge of the requirements of USA and television stations after distributing “British Calendar” successfully to them for 5 years and by the end reaching 140 stations weekly.
Furthermore, it had always seemed to some unrealistic that separate programs should be produced for the USA and Canada and the decision to produce only one was a sensible rationalization. The pooling of production made it possible for the new program to be produced weekly whereas the greatest frequency ever achieved for “British Calendar” was 39 issues in a year. Finally in assessing the decision to produce “London Line” weekly in colour it must be said that those who took the decision knew the kind of programming they were going to get since, as described above, it already existed as an experimental series in Canada.
Two pilot programs were produced and discussed thoroughly amongst the interested parties. The series was launched on schedule in late September 1967 and BIS New York promotion started a little later. Within two months the number of stations taking the program in the USA was about 90, but in the absence of any promotion beyond the initial campaign this number has now fallen to 60-70. It is worth noting that “British Calendar” did not reach 90 stations until 2 to3 years after its launching. Distribution in Canada is to 41 stations with an estimated audience (BIS Ottawa) of 2 million viewers. There is a run-on distribution in New Zealand and a number of other small territories.
One member of the Committee (Howard Thomas, Managing director of ABC Television) has said that it should be possible to analyse the effectiveness of COI television programs on a “cost per thousand” basis. This an advertising measurement which is not normally applied to information activity. However, COI have tabled a paper that gives the cost per thousand for “London Line” on its present distribution of 16s.9d. In COI’s view this calculation is based on a considerable under-estimate of the number of viewers since it takes no account of repeat transmissions of which there are undoubtedly a great number.A Committee (member) with expert knowledge on this subject thought that the figure calculated by COI is “very reasonable”.
We have set out the above since for the most part it is a matter of record. The fact remains that BIS New York do not any longer want “London Line”. They have given their reasons in detail and the Minister (Information) has given his views to the Committee. From his evidence it seems clear that BIS New York now wish to concentrate their television activities on reaching the mass audience in the cheapest and most direct ways possible. They recommend an increase of COI news material that is taken by networks and distributed to their subscribers, and a new effort to interest the networks in stories from Britain and if necessary to help them in producing such stories.
Clearly these approaches have merit but neither is strictly an alternative to the original conception of “London Line” which by definition, was intended to appeal to a minority “serious minded” audience. The Committee accepts the Ambassador’s recommendation that “London Line” should cease distribution in the United States.
It is clear that any future project of this magnitude must guaranteed a minimum period of one year, and if possible longer, before any decision is made about its future.
In a Minute dated 12 August 1968 Donald Kerr the COI Controller (Overseas) looked back on the working of the Sub-Committee and its Report and made the following comment:
COI had two aims. The first was to get the Sub-Committee to look at every aspect of our television work in the confident expectation that we would come out of it well and get better understanding and support in the future. The second was that we wanted a report which would give us and the Overseas Departments guide lines for a pattern of official television work for at least two years ahead and perhaps longer. I think we achieved both aims. The Sub-Committee also agreed with our view that the report should not be influenced by the possibility of cuts being made in the estimates for 1969-70 and 1970-71 which might necessitate reductions in our television services.
The enquiry was conducted in a very civilized and relaxed fashion which made possible the cut and thrust of debate – there was some quite blunt speaking on occasion –without which I do not think all the truths about policy and operations would have come out, let alone be recorded in the report. For this, considerable credit must go to the Chairman, Mr Samples
So in the end the Sub Committee and COI had to accept the wishes of BIS New York to discontinue use of the program with the consequence that the London Line (colour) series was discontinued for the USA in September 1968.
The demise of London Line (colour) was a considerable disappointment given the extent of the effort that had been expended. However it was to lead to new and ambitious directions both in terms of production and also of distribution. The latter issue was to question of the way in which television programs, serving the interests of the UK Overseas Information Services, were distributed and transmitted by television stations around the world.
Looking at the implications of Samples Report for the Overseas Television Services in the autumn of 1968 it was clear that a great many changes would have to be made together with some rapid thinking about new programs and structures. COI also noted key lines in the Samples Report.
They (BIS New York) recommend an increase of COI news material that is taken by networks and distributed to their subscribers, and a new effort to interest the networks in stories from Britain and if necessary to help them in producing such stories. This recommendation, while perfectly sensible by itself, was a move away from using programs as a means of utilizing television opportunities for information purposes to that of relying on individual news stories as a means of conveying hard information material. It was a scattergun approach since securing transmission of news stories depended wholly on the news events of the day. It did however lead to a growth in the amount of news material within the Overseas Television Services that became the London Television News Feature Service. It was this service that largely became the repository of "political" or hard information material for television.
New series such as Living Tomorrow , Pacemaker and others would appear to take the place of London Line.
If anyone has any more information or memories about this series please write in through "Contact Us"