POLITICS AND WIRELESS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 137, 11 June 1936, Page 8

POLITICS AND WIRELESS

LISTENERS MUST BE STUDIED

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your leading article of June 9 undoubtedly expresses the views of thousands of listeners in New Zealand. I, in common with mos„ other radio licence holders, purchased my set with the -idea of receiving some bright entertainm'ent after the worries of the day's business. There is ,o doubt that a big percentage of the listeners would prefer to read of the activities of the Parliamentarians in a condensed form in the papers instead of having to put up with our national stations being devoted entirely to broadcasting Parliament for hours on end.

Your cuttings from the "Sydney Morning Herald" and the San Francisco "Argonaut" are very timely warnings as to what could happen, and it would perhaps be advisable if some scheme of voting could be arranged whereby the feelings of the present licence holders could be expressed. This perhaps could be done through the medium of the Press, and could take the form of a voting paper, containing two lines: — "I am satisfied with, the present broadcasting policy." "I am dissatisfied with the present broadcasting policy." While politics are undoubtedly of interest to the public, it seems to me that as the politician is in Parliament in a business capacity, he is doing nothing more or less than advertise his wares, and advertising over the air is the cause of dissatisfaction to listeners in many countries. It is not a very long step from enforced mass thinking to the positions which have occurred in Italy, Germany, and Russia. Mass thinking, mass insurance, mass marketing! One wonders where it will end, and it is t > j be hoped that individual expression in so far as the Press is concerned is not one of the ultimate strangleholds to be applied by the present "powers-that-be." If, in spite bf all protests, the public are still forced to listen to Parliament from the national stations, then it is certainly time that permission be given to private, enterprise with a fitting remuneration in order that the public might be provided with the entertainment to which they are certainly entitled after having purchased expensive wireless sets and paid licence fees with the idea of getting away from the more sordid side of every-day affairs. —I am, etc., ENFORCED SUFFERER.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Thank you for your editorial, "Listeners First," in tonight's "Post" After a hard day's work a little music is much more needful to the soul than the inspired aspirations and lack of expired aspirates that we have had from all four YA stations in recent weeks so frequently.—l am, etc., A WORKER (BRAIN). June 9. (To the Editor.) Sir,—There has been much discussion recently concerning Parliamentary broadcasts. I would deem i* a favour if you would allow me a small space in your paper in which to air my opinion, as I feel that the more we say on the matter the more obvious will public opinion become. While listening in to our worthy politicians on Tuesday evening during the debate on the Broadcasting Bill, I heard one of the Independent members of the House state that when he listened to] some of the programmes presented to the public it was impossible to tell if "the stuff was singing or a dog fight." Now this esteemed gentleman went on to say that the present Bill is worthy of support in that it will ultimately be the means of enabling members of the public to receive the Parliamentary debates direct, instead of having distorted reports presented to them through the medium of antagonistic newspapers. This I consider an unjust criticism of the fair reports we have received through your paper.

That, Sir, is the essence of the gentleman's speech, for which he received a good hearing from the House, but I regret to say that when a member of the Opposition rose to reply, this gentleman, who had spoken of the present programmes as making "a dead cannibal blush," rent the air with broad Scot's blether, and in the ensuing "dog fight" his barking was loudest. Sir, had that gentleman been able to hear the "stuff" with which we were presented I am sure he would have turned his "machine" off. I ask, then, are we to be presented with orderly debates or just "dog fights"? I am sure the public, wfrich have shown great interest in the present Government, would prefer the most despondent crooner to the "dog fight" which we had to suffer on Tuesday evening. Thanking you for your valuable space and long suffering.—l am, etc., N.M.D.