THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1928. CONTROVERSIAL BROADCASTING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20353, 9 March 1928, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDA Y, MARCH 9, 1928. CONTROVERSIAL BROADCASTING.

Thu British Government has decided to remove the much-canvassed ban imposed upon the radio broadcasting of matters involving political, religious, and industrial controversy. The decision appears to have met with general approval,—the 6ablo states that it “ finds everybody delighted,”—and there can be little doubt that the popular sentiment conforms with the dictates of right, teason, and common sense. Any step of a popular nature taken by the Baldwin Government at this penultimate .stage of its cai’eer, “ with the general election in the offing,” affords an opportunity for the satire of cynics; and Mr Bernard Shaw, who is cynical, not to say mordant to his heart’s core, has not failed to score a plausible point. Tho wonder is that Mr Shaw does not doubt the soundness of his position, finding himself, not in proud and solitary isolation, but in the. mixed company of Mr Winston Churchill, tho Earl of Birkenhead, Mr Ramsay MacDonald, and Mr Lloyd George. The prohibition of controversial broadcasting may be traced to well-meant cautionary motives; and even now, when the restriction is seen to have been a mistake, there may be warrant for Mr Baldwins recommendation to the British Broadcasting Corporation “ to use discretion in utilising the power experimentally entrusted to it.” It is possible to imagine developments of undesirable license if unrestrained play were allowed to radio enterprise. But the corporation is not likely to take undue advantage of tho freedom of action conceded to it, and there can ho no question that tho continuance of the comprehensive veto which has recently been in force would be irksome and even intolerable. “ Controversy,” says Mr Churchill, “ is tho soul of British life,” and certainly his richly diversified controversial career entitles him to pronounce a definite judgment on the matter. There are close on two and ahalf million licensed wireless sets in England, representing an audience of (roughly speaking) ten million people. Can it be supposed that this vast congregation of listeners-in would permanently tolerate an embargo upon all topics that could be considered to carry a controversial colour? It has to be borne in mind that there is no compulsory listening. Doubtless there ere many radio enthusiasts who do not hanker for polemical harangues by Mr Baldwin or Mr Ramsay MacDonald, cr for spicy interchanges of Shavian and Chcstertonian paradox, or even for “ gorilla sermons ” by the Bishop of Birmingham, with sacramentarian rejoinders by the Rector of St. Michael Paternoster Royal. They may feel that any topics more controversial than the hardy annuals of the “ big gooseberry ” season in the correspondence columns of London newspapers are caviare to their pacific taste, and that even such a problem as “ Is Excessive Sport Spoiling the National Character?” possesses a too exciting quality. But loss quiescent minds demand stimulating sustenance. The idea of banishing controversial features from broadcasting enterprise seems really an untenable proposition. The Government will have been the more disposed to remove the embargo because it has been twitted with exercising a “ political censorship ” in its own favour. Some weeks ago a promising broadcast debate that had been arranged between Mr Philip Guedalla and Mr A, Ponsonby, M.P., oh the subject of “ Should diaries be burnt ? ” had to be cancelled owing to the refusal of the former to participate unless granted complete freedom of speech. In justification of his attitude Mr Guedalla wrote: “It had been my intention to give some reality to tho debate on diaries by discussing the political and historical value of some recently published memoirs. I might even have ventured on a few words to living politicians as to the advisability of destroying any dairies that may have been kept. But these are matters which may plainly fall under the ban of ‘ political controversy,’ and are, therefore, considered unfit for adult ears by the Postmaster-general. His delicacy in this matter does not apparently apply to speeches by his colleagues in honour of themselves. Thus nothing was done to deprive us of the pleasure of hearing Sir Austen Chamberlain on liis policy at the Aldwych Club, Mr Amery on his Empire tour at the St. George’s dinner, and the Prime Minister, supported by the whole heavenly host, at the Guildhall banquet; though I imagine that none of these gentlemen would suggest the policy of the present Government to be wholly free from controversy.”