RADIO CHILDREN'S HOUR

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21086, 10 February 1934, Page 9

RADIO CHILDREN'S HOUR

TO THE EniTOR OF THE PEE3B. Sir,—The first two paragraphs of "New Zealand's" letter in this morning's issue of your paper are interesting and fair. His third paragraph, however—an accusation against "Ariel"—is unjustified. "Ariel's" notes on Saturday mornings are the most widely read of all wireless news, and ail the radio enthusiasts of my acquaintance share with mc a high opinion of his capabilities both as a writer, and as a critic. His criticisms of the policy of the Broadcasting Board have always been of a constructive nature. This involves a reasonable element of destructive criticism. I fail to see how criticism tf any nature can avoid being destructive in its preliminary stages. That is in the very nature of the art of criticism. "Ariel" has never, to my knowledge, adversely criticised any feature in the board's programme without suggesting an alternative. I shrewdly suspect that "Ariel's" opinions have largely influenced the board in many of the recent changes in programme organisation. The regular performance of recorded versions of concertos, sonatas, orchestral symphonies and suites, and of complete operas was urged consistently by "Ariel" and at last we have them. His criticism of the children's session seems to me constructive. I am glad to hear from "New Zealand" that these sessions have improved considerably lately. Since the provision of an alternative musical programme, I have not listened to the children's session, so I cannot judge. I suppose I am in the same boat as most adult listeners. — Yours, etc., INSULATOR. February 9, 1934. TO THE EDITOR 07 THE MESS. Sir,—l was very amused at your two correspondents "Purau" and "New Zealand" rushing into print with the statement that your correspondent "Ariel" was six months late in his mention of Commander King-Hall. It seems to me that had "Ariel" mentioned Shakespeare, the same two writers would have come out with the statement: "Ha, ha,; Shakespeare has been dead for years." I have read "Ariel's" notes with keen interest for each Saturday for some considerable time, and so far from his

radio topics being destructive, I have alwavs found him to be an unswerving adherent to all that is best in programmes. On the occasions that he has criticised the board, I have noticed that he has always added suggestions whereby programmes might be improved. "Ariel" should take no notice and carry on in his own way. We like it.—Yours, etc., INTERESTED. February 9, 1934.