The Aurkland Star: MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1931. CONTROL OF BROADCASTING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 193, 17 August 1931, Page 6

The Aurkland Star:

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1931. CONTROL OF BROADCASTING.

BRITISH PROGRESS.

DOMINIONS IN CONFLICT.

WITH WHICH ABB IKCOBPORAT» Oft?* -Eorttfatg £fa»a, HJortrtttg Sfoms.

For <ft« eetuee that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The future control of broadcasting in the Dominion has been discussed for some time past, and the scheme that the Broadcasting Company has now put forward in detail gives the public something definite to consider. The company pioneered this popular form of entertainment, and it deserves the thanks of the community for what it has done. Much of the criticism directed against it has arisen from a failure to realise the difficulty of supplying first-class programmes in so small a community. The company's balance-sheet shows that its enterprise has brought it no fortune, but if it had been readier with such information in the past there would have been less criticism. It now proposes that the service should be owned and controlled on a "customer-ownership" plan, the capital to be divided between the present management and the holders of licenses. It is proposed to improve the service in various ways and to extend the system of consultation with the public.

Broadcasting is a public utility of enormous importance, control of which should not be left entirely to private enterprise in the ordinary sense of the term. It is not only that broadcasting provides entertainment for tens of thousands; it is a first-class instrument for the spreading of culture—and propaganda. The requisites of a really good service are a high standard in technical equipment, a judicious blend of idealism and common sense in the choice of entertainment, and absolute integrity in the selection of news and opinions. Those who control what goes over the air should be above party and partisan influence. In England, where the service is considered to be the best in the world, control has been placed in the hands of an independent corporation. The system may be described as one of State control with a difference; the Government apparently cannot interfere in policy or administration. This naturally suggests itself as a model for New Zealand, but it would be much more difficult than it is in England to get the right men for membership of the controlling body. One may doubt whether the State should incur this-expendi-ture in a time of depression, if the work can be done equally well by private effort under proper safeguards. Much depends upon these safeguards. The first thing to do in the examination of the company's scheme is to ascertain whether the proposed capitalisation is reasonable —whether, for • one thing, the company is asking too much for its property, and an independent valuation may be suggested. The scheme should be examined carefully by the Government and by a committee representing the holders of licenses.

After reading so many messages from Britain chronicling difficulties and gloom and prophecies in accents terrible, it is quite cheering to come upon to-day's report of the chief inspector of factories. Despite the general-depression, new works are being built in the London area which "will provide not only facilities for production of a high order, but for the health, safety and welfare of the workers." Throughout Britain "there are many instances of large expenditure in building better factories, laying down modern machinery, changing methods so as to increase efficiency and achieving economy in production by labour-saving devices, full economy and the use of new materials." This bears out what so competent an observer as Mr. Wickham Steed said recently, in reply to criticisms in M. Siegfried's "England's Crisis." Mr. Steed thinks that a national revolution is going on slowly and quietly in England—a revolution in industrial methods as well as in social conditions. Other English writers have answered M. Siegfried od similar lines. It is wise to bear these views in mind when English news is read.

The correspondence between Canada and New Zealand makes painful reading. Here are two Dominions who should be encouraging reciprocal trade to the utmost, but* have banged, barred and bolted the doors of their warehouses. It is an unhappy illustration of the difficulties in the way of freer trade between parts of the Empire. There is no shadow of doubt, however, where the main responsibility lies. It was Canada that banged the first door. New Zealand protested, and, not getting any satisfaction, banged its door. There is, however, a direct conflict of statement as to subsequent fact. Mr. Bennett says it was suggested that Mr. Forbes should return from London via Canada, in which case a comprehensive agreement might have been reached. The Canadian Government has always been prepared to enter into negotiations, but in view of New Zealand's tone and policy prospects are not promising. Mr. Forbes denies Canada's willingness to negotiate. He denies that he was invited to return by Canada, and he has said he was given to understand that a return visit would be useless. Mr. Forbes, however, declares New Zealand's willingness to enter into negotiations at once, and invites a Canadian Minister to visit New Zealand. He is criticised for not sending a Minister to Canada, but there are two good reasons for him not making such an offer.' The political situation is :nuch more delicate here than it is in Canada, which makes it more difficult for him than it is for Mr. Bennett to spare a Minister, and he has already visited Canada himself and failed in his mission. It is Canada's turn to travel. There the matter stands, and let us hope it will not stand, long.,