RADIO RESTRICTION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22226, 28 September 1935, Page 10

RADIO RESTRICTION

differences in opinion PROPAGANDIST FRUSTRATED RIGHTS OF THE LISTENER " I would rather remain in ignorance than be taught by Daniel." So used to say a father whoso son was constantly trying to teach him the '.vay he should go. Tho remark might well be taken as a text for a discussion of radio restriction. There must, of course, be some restriction otherwise every organisation and every individual with a "caus<3' ? would want to establish a private station and obtain full scope. But, says . the person with a caifee or what he thinks is a "call," wo should have the right to use existing stations. This great gift should not be hedged around by restrictions. Restriction by tho State, so he argues, will inevitably be employed in the political interest of the governing party whether a board exists or not. Restriction means withholding knowledge from the people hence it hampers progress. And so on. " Never the Twain Shall Meet " To this a listener retorts: "We mast be safeguarded against propagandists. Most people with causes are propagandists. We deny the right to inflict on us opinions which in any case we can better examine in literature." " Switch off if you do not like it," Bays the champion of freedom. , "We prefer to keep the air free from controversy," replies the listener. " You are not representative." "Are you?" " I represent a school of thought." " I represent the school that reads and thinks for itself." " What of those who do not read?" ' " What of those who are propagandists and read along one line only and therefore are not competent to teach?" "The air should be an open forum." " You wan* to drag people to your forum." " Is it not a public duty to stimulate those whose ignorance and apathy are a bwrier that only the radio can hope to overcome? " <£ " Yet your aim often is to secure the votes of these ignorant and apathetic people." The argument is endless. "Never thr twain shall meet." The Mood and the Man There are, however, facts about the matter which need not lead to argument. It must have occurred to manj that the man and the mood often fovern the situation. Assume that 'rofessor Algie, for instance, had the authority and the inclination to enter the aerial lists upon some warmly controversial subject. He might contend along a line utterly opoosed to our views but his gentle methods, which in actual fact might be most devastating to his opponents, his characteristic Eleasantness, quite apart from the nowledge he revealed, would disarm hostility. We would listen to him with pleasure and a sense of fraternal feeling. We might cay to ourselves " The professor is far astray, poor chap" but because* of his calibre and character we would not "simply boil" as we might if the subject had been tackled from the same angle by a man with bitterness, on his tongue and claws in his reice. We would be mentally stimulated though not convinced and we would remain serene.

The Other Style Take on the other hand, say, a Mr Lang, armed for a most fiery rray. In one mood the most antagonistic lisk ener might listen and laugh. In another he would fume and turn off the machine. Even as an advocate of some dan gerous kind of monetary reform Mr. W Downie Stewart would not arouse the choler of his listening opposition as would _ one employing verbal violence and displaying crude emotions. ■ Of course, there are listeners to whom the tirade method appeals. At a recent meeting one heard a young man in the audience making such delighted comments as these: " That's the stuff." "That's the way to swing it in." " Can't he put in the boot." But he represents those who are con yinced, who enjoy the fiery attack for its own sake and who never seem to realise that rage matters little unless it enlarges a following. As time goes on propagandists will probably become more subtle and by subtlety may succeed in arguing over the air by inference. Radio is young bub so also is the human family.