The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News. The Echo and The Sun. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1934. BROADCASTING DIFFICULTIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 68, 21 March 1934, Page 6

The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News. The Echo and The Sun.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1934. BROADCASTING DIFFICULTIES.

For the cause that lacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance For the future in the distance, And the good that 'ae can do

Much criticism has been directed lately at the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the Director-General has now given an explanation of its constitution and administration which is said to have made a favourable impression on a meeting of 150 Conservative members of the House of Commons. At one time the policy of the authorities was to exclude all matter of a controversial nature. This led to leave to broadcast being refused to many speakers the public were anxious to hear. It was difficult also to define the word, "controversial." Most subjects of any interest are either controversial in themselves or capable of being treated in a controversial manner. Later the ban on controversial subjects was removed, and complaints have been voiced in the House that some of the broadcasts on foreign affairs have shown no regard for the policy of the Government ox* the League of Nations. So eminent an authority as Sir Austen Chambei'lain, formerly Foreign Minister, said in the Commons a few "weeks ago that some of the recent broadcasts tended not to promote peace, but to disturb it, and that a very serious problem was arising. The occasions on which they were delivered, the circumstances in which they were delivered, and the people and points of view to which they were confined, were such that unless a change took place it would be the duty of the House to direct its attention to the matter.

A broadcast to have any value must reflect to some extent the opinions of the person giving it, and the relative value he places on facts. The case of a British broadcast on Austria and the Nazis "was cited by one speaker as having been too critical of Dr. Dollfuss and too favourable to the Nazis. This is a question on "which a good deal of difference of opinion exists both in Austria and in Germany. Mr. Bartlett, who gave the broadcast, expressed his own view of the situation, and thought the policy of the Austrian Chancellor was doomed to failure, and was against the wishes of the majority of the citizens of his country. Another speaker might easily have taken a different view. If, however, there is to be any real freedom of speech in broadcasting, speakers must be at liberty to express their views on any given situation and to select their facts. That these views will not always be the views of the Government of the day is only to be expected. Nor would it be desirable that they should consistently espouse the views of the Government. In Germany and in Russia Nazi views or Communist views are alone permitted to be broadcast. The consequence is that in these countries broadcast talks have ceased to be of any interest to foreigners. There is, however, a difficulty in talks on foreign affairs which is not found in talks on other subjects. They may be used, as Germany and Russia have used them, to influence opinion in other countries, and they may be contrary to the policy that the Government of the country is trying to put into operation. The evil of broadcast propaganda for foreign ears might be dealt with by international agreement. Difference o£ opinion between Governments and broadcasting corporations as to comment on public affairs is hardly capable of being adjusted completely without endangering independence, and that independence is precious. But every care can be taken to see that control of broadcasting shall be in the hands of well-educated men with a full sense of responsibility.