(d) Developments in camera grammar
40. In evidence to the Committee, broadcasters argued
that the Rules of Coverage were now out of date. David Lloyd,
Head of News and Current Affairs for Channel 4, on 2 November
1999 put the views of the broadcasters comprehensively, and which
are worth repeating at length, when he said:
"While I think it is true that broadcasters
can demonstrate their obligation throughout the last ten years
to fair and balanced coverage, I think we all have to ask whether
these rules as they currently are can possibly be judged to deliver
coverage that is full and accurate? Let us take, first of all,
if I may, the stricture against close-up shots. The technical
rule states: "The standard format for depicting the Member
who has the floor should be a head and shoulders shot, not a close-up".
I think it is fair to ask why exactly? The whole point about modern
television direction is that a close-up is sometimes appropriate,
and sometimes not. All good directors use the close-up sparingly
so as not to devalue the coinage. So why is it, I think we must
ask, that a director can be trusted to judge the use of close-ups
at a party conference, on Newsnight, on Channel 4 News, but not
in the Chamber of the House of Commons? Small wonder perhaps that
some of our viewers find the coverage distant and unexciting as
a result. Take, again, perhaps the protocol on cut-away shots.
"Occasional cut-away shots to illustrate individual reactions
are allowed, but only to show a Member who has been referred to
by the Member speaking". The point, though, about any political
debate, surely—one might say about any human interaction—
is that it cannot be fully or accurately represented within such
stilted regulations. No wonder again that some of our viewers
find so much of the coverage lacking in the very dynamic that
they experiences when sitting in the public gallery, and yet the
objective, clearly states, was to have been a full and accurate
account of proceedings. One should not forget that this concession
to cut-aways is not vouchsafed in Question Time, Private Notice
Questions or Ministerial Statements. Here any depiction of interest,
or even disinterest, on the part of any Member referred to is
out of bounds to our audience, your electorate. All this within
the stated rubric of providing a full and accurate account of
proceedings".[15]
He concluded by stating:
"I have to say that it we were to loosen
the shackles of the current rules I believe that the director
could be allowed to portray the business of the House as fully
and accurately as any other aspect of politics. We could then
allow the viewer the same engagement as is vouchsafed to anyone
in the public gallery and, we all hope, bring a new audience to
politics and relocate a departed one".[16]
41. The Committee has the delegated authority
to lift the restriction on the use of reaction shots of named
or identifiable Members during Question Time, Ministerial Statements
and Private Notice Questions; we propose to exercise that authority,
with effect from the start of Session 2000-2001.
11 
