BAN ON 1ZR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 136, 12 June 1933, Page 8

BAN ON IZR.

EXPLANATION GIVEN.

STATION REPEATEDLY WARMED.

BREACHES OF REGULATIONS. fl'Jy Telegraph.—Spceial to "Star.'') WELLINGTON, this day. On inquiry being made of an official sourco to-day concerning the cireuinstances which led to the closing of IZII radio broadcasting station in Auckland, it was learned that an official tile at the Post and Telegraph headquarters shows that tho ban was imposed after repeated official warnings, which were ignored. The warnings were given after the failure of the station, in the Departments judgment, to follow the form of announcement prescribed in tho regulations concerning sponsored programmes. The regulations permit the name and address of a business firm to be mentioned as providing the programme, and it is also permissible to state that the lirm carries on a particular kind of business. Specific complaints have been made iu respect to IZR announcements that tho trade' descriptions have been far more extensivo and that references to facilities provided by business firms have been allowed on tho air. One sponsored talk to which attpntion was officially called contained the statement: "I import my particular goods from England and supply them all over New Zealand." The Post and Telegraph Department 011 February 5 notified the station that it had infringed the regulations by broadcasting controversial matter, that it was interpolating advertising propaganda in transmissions, and that the station director had refused to cut oft further transmissions when his attention was called to this infringement. This warning concluded with the official declaration that if the station continued f to offend, its license would be withdrawn. The Department 011 February 22 again complained of infringements of the regulations by IZK, and gave a further reminder of the risk of tho station's licenso being withdrawn. Official cheeks were recorded of announcements from this station, the Department not taking action as a consequence of private complaints. On April 20 this check caused another official reminder to be given of a number of infringements, of which ■specific details were mentioned, and Ihis letter concluded, that it must be regarded as the final warning. However, the actual filial warning was given early in June, because the experience of the Department led it to the conclusion that the licensees of IZR had been making a practice of deliberately altering the form of announcement of sponsored programmes, with the palpable object of including publicity for the particular firm or concern sponsoring the programme.