POLITICIANS AND LISTENERS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 218, 14 September 1944, Page 4

POLITICIANS AND LISTENERS

BROADCASTING of the proceedings of the House of Representatives was instituted in order that the people, wherever they might be, might listen to their national affairs being discussed by their elected representatives. Though some doubts were expressed as to the wisdom of the innovation, it was hardly expected that after, some years of experience of the broadcast the opinion would be frequently heard that it "does more harm than good," and that it should be restricted, if not abolished. One answer to this opinion might be that listening is not compulsory—if it were, the consequences at the next election would probably shock the Parliamentarians—but this is not sufficient. If the result of the broadcast is that people's respect for Parliament has fallen, then Parliament and people should be closely concerned to discover why. The basic explanations are two. First, the technique required in speaking to a microphone is not the same as that required in speaking to an assembly such'as the House of Representatives; secondly, the Tnicrophone is not selective. A good broadcaster, or a bad one, is not necessarily a good or a bad Parliamentarian. It. is not part of the business of a Parliamentarian—or it should not be—to be a good broadcaster. His business, in the Chamber, is not to please the radio audience; it is to convince his fellow members. Many a member in the past who lias lacked the qualifications of a good public speaker has succeeded without them, because he spoke sincerely and knew that of which he spoke. But members to-day must be microphone-conscious; and the efforts of some of them, when speaking, to keep in mind both their audience in the Chamber and the wider, unseen audience outside, lead them to speak in a manner convincing to neither. There can be no doubt that the constant awareness of the speaker and his fellow members that he is "on the air" is causing a change in the character of debate, and that change is not for the better. The broadcast has made people aware that too many members speak on too many subjects—there is, unfortunately, little attempt at specialisation—and that in consequence their remarks are often superficial. The Press reporters, who knew this, long ago,, have> as a necessary part of their work winnowed the wheat from the chaff, but the newspapers' reward has often been an accusation of bias. Now, the people may realise that the newspapers through the years have done them a service —and the members, too, though from one type of member an acknowledgment is not to be expected. The microphone has given members of this, type an opportunity, at no expense to themselves, of mounting a colossal soapbox, and electioneering throughout the Parliamentary term. To check present tendencies will not be easy, even if the desire exists. Limitation of the broadcasts to debates on questions of major importance, or limitation of the broadcasting privilege to leading members on both sides of the House, would be open to serious objection. Nevertheless the House might well consider whether the advantages of some agreed limiiation would not greatly outweigh the cumulative disadvantages of the present system. The House should begin from the standpoint that the microphone is a servant which must not "be allowed to become a master, nor to affect the quality of its master's work. In this connection listeners' complaints of interjections and noises during a speech—unless these are deliberately made to affect the broadcast—are misplaced Interjections, especially in the form of questions, are often useful. It is far more important that the House should do its work competently than that the broadcast should be smooth and pleasing to listeners.