Freedom of Speech On the Radio

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27040, 15 May 1953, Page 8

Freedom of Speech On the Radio

The spirit of the reply by the t Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Algie) to Mr F. P. Walsh on the trade ; union broadcast series is as welcome as the substance. Mr Walsh had 1 objected to the inclusion of a talk ■ on Russian unionism by Mr F. L. Langley, who recently returned 1 from a visit to Russia, on the ground that the New Zealand Broadcasting Service in commission- . ing Mr Langley was giving facilities for spreading Russian propaganda. There was no obvious reason why . the broadcasting authorities, who have been criticised (though not much recently) for some timidity in approaching radio controversy, should have so far forgotten their caution in this particular instance as to countenance propaganda, which has no place on the national broadcasting system. Mr Algie now not only gives an assurance that Mr Langley’s script, after the normal careful examination, has been found free from propaganda; refusing to impose a kind of political censorship, he goes on to say: “What he [Mr “ Langley] says can fairly be printed “in the columns of any newspaper, “ and could be uttered on any public “platform. Why not then on the “ radio ”? This is evidence that Mr Algie will not reverse the recent more liberal approach to radio controversy which has given greater freedom in the expression of differing opinions. In this instance Mr Langley has been asked to talk about trade unions which lack the political and economic influence of trade unions as they are known in

New Zealand and other Western democracies. Because of Mr Langley’s political views it may reasonably be thought that in describing the different functions of Russian uniorj (of which he was recently the guest) he will speak with some approval of their work, but Mr Walsh had no. cause to suspect that Mr Langley would go beyond, the terms of his commission, and still less to suspect that the broadcasting authorities would permit him to do so. It may safely be left to listeners to understand Mr Langley’s attitude. Now that Mr Algie has made it clear that there will be nc propaganda, it is to be hoped that Mr Walsh will reconsider his hasty decision not to accept the service’s invitation, which includes the right to speak last in the series and to reply to the other talks. We have not always agreed with Mr Walsh (though probably more often than we have agreed with Mr Langley); but we would not like him to miss this opportunity of stating his views on a subject about which he can speak with some authority. That is freedom of speech as “The Press”, like Mr Algie, understands it