RADIO BROADCASTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23078, 1 July 1938, Page 11

RADIO BROADCASTS

FBEEDOM ADVOCATED SYSTEM IN UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC FAIR PLAY PRACTICES AND POLICIES By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright NEW YORK, June 'JO " 'The British once led lis in matters of freedom of speech, (he press and expressions generally,' said Mr. Sarnoff, president of the Radio Corporation of America, to me, 'hut. now apparently they are leaving it to America to develop freedom of the air, and themselves introducing a system of voluntary

censorship, which does not appeal to the American sense of democratic fair play even in times of crisis.' " Thus Mr. Herbert Brookes, chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, summed up one of the most important impressions left upon him following a study of American broadcasting practices and policies. He is to leave for England to-morrow to continue his inquiry in Britain. American System Supported Mr. Brookes in an interview with tho Australian Associated Press, said that Mr. Sarnoff's point of view was also maintained by other important broadcasting executives with whom lic> had consulted, notably Mr. Palcv, president of tho Columbia Broadcasting System. Indeed, both largo and small broadcasting executives were unanimous in protecting the American system of freedom of the air. * Mr. Brookes pointed out that his investigations showed the following methods whereby this was achieved: — In tho first place, scripts were not subjected to censorship, save for libellous or indecent matter; secondly, broadcasting officials invite air debates on controversial subjects, even such as Communism; thirdly, broadcasting officials would not accept payment for time on the air in certain instances of a political nature, but would give both sides time free. Involuntary Censorship Danger Mr. Brookes indicated that thp American broadcasting officials were following with very keen interest thv> system of so-called voluntary censorship practised in Britain, particularly where Government sources suggested to disseminators of information that they refrain from making known certain facts, ostensibly in the greater interest of the State. American broadcasting executives feel thero is danger that tho system will degenerate toward involuntary censorship. Mr. Brookes, in conclusion, said ho could not better sum up American concepts than in the manner expressed by Mr. Lohr, president of the National Broadcasting Company: "Freedom of the air, wo conceive, should be freedom of equal opportunity for discussion of controversial public issues," and Mr. Sarnoff has said: "I believe free radio and free democracy are inseparable; that we cannot have a controlled radio and retain democracy; that when free radio goes so goes free speech, free press, freedom of worship, and freedom of education."