BROADCASTING CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 97, 21 October 1931, Page 8

BROADCASTING CONTROL

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

OWNERSHIP

(To the Editor.)

Kir,— .May I express my appreciation of the admirable editorial paragraph "Looking to the Future," contained iv your is»uo of Monday, and advocating the public ownership of broadcasting. There is, as; you say, ;v general failure to appreciate the significance of this question and the | importance of the decision, which the Government is called upon to make. The brief history of radio, if it is studied, shows that the earliest developments of broadcasting were in most countries due to the enterprise of private companies or individuals who fully deserve all the credit that is due to them. But this was before the potentialities of radio were apparent. With its growth, and with the realisation of its increasing social significance, one country after another has felt the need of instituting some form of public control and of conducting broadcasting as a national service in the public interest. Viewed in this way, it is clear that radio in New Zealand has now reached this same critical point. Unfortunately thus far in . this country there has been little general realisation of the true situation and of the urgency of the present moment; though private interests and uninformed opinion have been loudly vocal. If another licence should be granted to the Radio Broadcasting Company, long before it expires the public of New Zealand will be sadly aware of the mistake that will have been made.

The British Broadcasting Corporation stands as a model to the world of what can be done with radio in every form of entertainment and education, and for this reason alone the Bill which has been before Parliament and which provides for a form of control similar to that in Britain deserves the strongest support of all those who are interested in radio, and in the future social life of this country. The experience of the rest of the world should show us, before we commit ourselves to another five years of private control, that public ownership alone can make the most and best of radio. The system of control by public corporation possesses the unique advantage of combining freedom from political interference with that sense of community service and responsibility which results from public ownership. At the moment one notes with interest the highly important part which radio is playing in the British election and the success of the 8.8.C. in providing radio facilities without any suggestion of partisanship. , Your same issue contains a letter from Mr. Ernest Palliser concerning the report of the statements of Professor Robertson and myself "at the recent deputation to the Postmaster-General. _ Mr. Palliser's angry and confused opinions on culture, mental age, intelligence, and their connection with community singing, are their own self-criticism. It might be pointed out that no exception was ever taken to community singing at midday for charitable purposes. ■ What I am more concerned with is Mr. Palliser's confusion of the real issue of public ownership versus private monopoly in the control of radio with the relative- scale of things in Britain and New Zoalaud. Here one might suggest that Mr.' Palliser take a lesson in logic from another of your correspondents on this question, Mr. L. D. Austin, who so nicely takes Professor Robertson and me to task while supporting our main contentions. It clearly miikcs no difference to the question of ownership and control that in New Zealand a smaller income would be available to tho Broadcasting Board and that it would necessarily work in a more limited way than docs tho 8.8.C. All the arguments for public ownership still stand. Ouo feels that much more voluntary help would be given to a corporation concerned only with the service of the community than would be given to a pri-vately-owned company. This brings me to the point in your correspondent's letter with which I am most seriously concerned.

What I can only describe as the mean and discreditable suggestion contained in Mr. Palliser's last paragraph astonishes me and will astonish anyone who is made aware of the following facts which, _in view of the charge made, I feel fully justified in making public. Mr. Palliser says: "It may also have occurred to the Minister that these fervent advocates of broadcast culture were even more fervently concerned with the prospect of converting the broadcasting service into a fount of revenue for the apostles of the W.E.A. who are evidently willing and anxious to give the community all the culture it con swallow at so ranch per dose." What are the facts? During the past four years the W.E.A. has arranged from 2YA lecturettes and discussions by the most highly-qualified persons in Wellington without the organisation or the lecturers receiving one penny. During the present year sixteen W.E.A. leeturcttes have been given on Saturday evenings and a special course of sis on Child Psychology was given during afternoon sessions. The preparation of these lecturettes often means many hours' work to thoso giving them. Within recent weeks the company has made an offer of payment which has not as yet been taken advantage of by the local W.E.A. The voluntary arrangement continues, and I have myself declined to participate in another series of talks for which, to my surprise, I discovered a fee was being paid, preferring to stand in with those who have been lecturing voluntarily under the auspices of my organisation. As to the general w«jrk of the W.E.A. in its tutorial .classes, it may interest your readers to know that at the beginning of this year, faced with financial uncertainty and a diminished income, our tutors were advised that it might not be possible to pay them their, fees. Without exception they agreed to carry on--their lecturing work. In the light of these facts the public will know how. to judge Mr. Palliser.

As Mr. Palliser may know, debates over tho air have- been an interesting feature of the programmes in Great Britain and in Europe, and have been introduced into Now Zealand programmes by tho W.E.A. I have much pleasure in issuing a challenge to Mr. Palliser to debate the question of broadcasting in New Zealand in any or all of its, aspects over the air from 2YA at an early date.—l am, etc.,

I. L. G. SUTHERLAND.