Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1935. POLITICAL EDUCATION

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 137, 6 December 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1935. POLITICAL EDUCATION

In the outline of Labour's immediate plan of action which was given by Mr. Savage when he knew that he was to be Prime Minister one of die proposals was to put Parliament on the air.- "Those who were interested," he said, "would be entitled to listen to their elected representatives discussing national affairs. There is no reason why the people should be deprived of the right to hear what their representatives have to say. when they are discussing matters which vitally concern the people." Mr. Savage gave no details of what was proposed, but he said all important questions, when debated in. Parliament, would be broadcast. On the theory of the public right to hear what' public men say we cannot differ from Mr. Savage. Listeners who wish to hear political debates either for instruction or entertainment are entitled to consideration equal with that extended to those who pay their licence fees in order to hear a concerto or the broadcast description of a wrestling match. But there are certain practical differences. After an hour of a wrestling broadcast the listener has heard all about that bout and, I even if he has not it is of little moment. And after an hour of classical music he may be enthusiastic about Beethoven (because he has heard his music) or indifferent (because he has switched off when the recital began); but his appreciation or lack of it will affect no one but himself. He has not to vote for Bach or Beethoven in the near future.

That presents one of the prime difficulties of political broadcasting. It will influence judgment; therefore it must be fair. The best efforts of the broadcasting authorities will not suffice to make it fair beyond reproach because the fairness depends among other things upon the active co-operation of the listener. Labour's advocacy of Parliamentary broadcasting has been based principally on the claim that the people are entitled to know what their representatives are doing and saying; and the charge, has been made (unjustly we maintain) that Press reports do not <give the information. Admittedly the Press reports do not give everything. Verbatim reports of the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council with adequate summaries of the departmental and committee reports presented to-Par-liament would take about forty columns of a daily paper. No newspaper could give this and retain its readers. Therefore, the proceedings must be reported in abridged form. But the condensation is done by highly-trained and impartial reporters, who are guided by their experience of what interests the public. No set rules can be laid down regarding public interest. One member may be reported at length because his arguments are interesting, another because he speaks with authority (either as a Minister or as a leading member of the Opposition), another ' because he is, bright and witty, and another because he is a local member whose opinions are more interesting to readers than the opinions of a man they do not know. The point is that die debates cannot, except on special occasions, be reported in full; and condensation, no matter how fairly and skilfully it is done, is bound to displease somebody. Broadcasting would be subject to even greater handicaps. Few listeners, if any, would listen to 'a complete broadcast of Parliamentary proceedings. If the Council and the House were both put on the air listeners could not, of course, hear both at the same time: Therefore, a selection must be made, either by chance by the listener, or by the political or broadcasting authorities. If the listener made his own chance selection and switched on his radio for an hour of debating he might hear something important or he might not. What is certain is that he would not have a well-propor-tioned impression of the debate. In time, probably, members would learn which were the best broadcasting hours and would compete for the right to speak at such times as they are: now eager to speak when the galleries are well filled. But this would not give the listening public a fair idea of Parliament's work. To give even the semblance of fairness a broadcast summary would be needed, and whoever prepared it would be as much subject to attack for bias as the newspapers are now. Broadcasting has the further disadvantage that it cannot be put aside for a time convenient to the listener. The newspaper reader may take up his paper at any hour and the report is there for him. The radio listener has the variety afforded by a choice of stations within range, but if he does not listen when the item he wishes to hear is on the air he misses it. An imaginative author has written of an invention that could be used to recapture past broadcasts; but this is not available yet. The receiving set can be turned on but not turned back, arid except by the frequent repetition of recorded broadcasts (which has evoked protests even when practised to a moderate extent for die All Black

matches) the transmitting stations cannot meet die time requirements of all listeners. In mentioning these difficulties we are not by any means opposing an attempt to improve the political education of the public. The more the public take an intelligent interest in political affairs the better will it be for the country. But broadcasting, • with all its great powers, is not a perfect instrument for this purpose. The difficulties were recognised when a suggestion wa's made that broadcasting should be used in the General Election. Mr. Savage admitted then that it was apparently not easy to devise a satisfactory plan. The broadcasting of Parliament presents many more complex problems.