CRITICISING PROGRAMMES AT HOME

Evening Star, Issue 21718, 12 May 1934, Page 4

CRITICISING PROGRAMMES AT HOME

It seems a fixed principle to criticise all broadcasting programmes, writes Xelle -M. Scanlan to tlie 4 Post.’ Those wiiu huvo enjoyed a much more restricted’ service in other countries are amazed at the variety and richness of the fare supplied by tne 8.8. C. in London. But there is constant complaint and a violent campaign of sniping at every new feature. That so vast an organisation should have come into being in ten years is remarkable enough, and much of its work is necessarily experimental. Yet those who, at some given moment, without looking up the programme, turn the knob, and find a symphony concert when they want to dance or a talk when they hope for jazz, leap to the desk and write to the Press or the 8.8. C., boiling with fury. Sir John Reith has just explained to the Conservative Party that if they can please 75 per cent, of these mixed tastes and demands they are achieving a high average. Recently Mr Van Gielgud, who is in charge of the broadcast plays, has invited listeners to express an opinion as to the type of play and the length and character of the performance they most enjoy. He has received 10,000 letters, and they are/ still coming in. One wireless critic on a London paper is demanding music for breakfast. The world is becoming too full of noise, and most people feel that tbo morning paper or the family conversation is enough to start the day on. One almost dreads the summer now, when, with open windows and doors, and the houses and fiats so packed together, peace is shattered with a dozen wireless sets, all audible, but relaying different items. The censorship of talks is' another ground of complaint. But with the millions as a potential audience, and not alone the British, but the foreign millions, it is not possible to permit anyone who feels he has a message to save the world to have free play. Recently, in a series of talks by working people, a man submitted his manuscript and portions which were deemed unduly controversial or unwise for broadcast were blue-pencilled and the revised script returned to him. He received it several days before the date of broadcast; he also rehearsed the speech at the 8.8. C. But on the night of his talk, instead of reading it, he stated to the listening world that it had been so censored that it was worthless and he would not proceed. There was the usual uproar. Sir John Reith has now explained that the speaker made no protest when he received the amended script, nor did he express dissatisfaction with it when he rehearsed it. He waited till he got to the microphone. In view of this fact, the danger of lettiiig anyone say anything that might have’ unpleasant consequences, the censorship seems to have justified itself.

Tho British Broadcasting Corporation is in some ways a national institution and under Government control. For that reason it is difficult to persuade foreign listeners that it is not, as in many European countries, the direct voice of the Government, and misunderstandings are likely to arise if the Government is credited—or debited—with the views expressed. In Germany and Russia wireless is a most effective means of propaganda. In England that is not permitted.