THE RADIO REGULATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21990, 27 June 1933, Page 8

THE RADIO REGULATIONS

tO THE EDITOR.

Sib, —I was very amused, or,, more accurately, I should have heen amused, had it not been so pitiful, to read the effusion of your correspondent "Deceived", published this morning in your columns regarding the broadcast of Mr Peter Dawson's talk from 4YA on Friday last. I do- not wish to have myself associated with the class of person who, on the slightest provocation, rushes into print over trivialities and for whom I have the greatest contempt, but I cannot forbear answering " Deceived's " letter, even though it is, I consider, the last word in pettiness. From the .expressions used; in the letter and despite his assurances one feels very sceptical of his disinterestedness. I happen to be a personal friend of Mr Ernest Drake, and have recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr Dawson, and I am certain that neither of these gentlemen, nor Mr Alfred * Walmsley, desired either to give or receive -any of "the glorified advertisement" referred to in ' Deceived's " letter. It seems to me that all Mr Dawson desired to do was to speak on a_ topic which he thought would be of interest and would give pleasure to Dunedin listeners. I myself heard the talk, and cannot see anything for any but a very prejudiced ear to take exception to. In any case, it hardly seems to be fair to blame the 4YA station authorities if Mr •Dawson unwittingly infringed lbroadcasting regulations, which I consider he did not do. It is impossible for the station authorities to ask for a written copy of talks given beforehand for approval or to foresee what each person talking from their station is going to say, nor is it easy for them to take, on themselves at a second's notice the discourtesy of "cutting off "so distinguished a visitor as Mr Dawson./

The gist of Mr Dawson's statement was simply that both Mr Drake and Mr Walmsley were personal friends of his, and had worked with him, and that they were doing good work for musical advancement in this city. He also mentioned that H.R.H. the Prince of Wales was a friend of his. Perhaps " Deceived " takes exception to this also. One thing that is certain is that Mr'Dawson's genial nature is far above the type of triviality out of which, " Deceived "makes such a mountain. * I only wish your correspondent might have, been privileged to hear Mr Dawson's comment when his letter was brought to his/notice. His ears would surely have burned, but then again probably they would not. Such correspondents as this, I feel, disgrace our city in the eyes of visitors, and any citizen of average good sense must blush for them. The most laughable feature of the letter is that "Deceived," by complaining'so bitterly through your columns, only' serves to aggravate the publicity which he so much dislikes. Apparently it was out of his desire to avoid this as much as possible, without having to forgo his wail to the newspapers, that with super-prudence he so carefully avoided any mention of the. names of the two gentlemen concerned, even going to the lengths of leaving blanks in his letter, when probably half the city heard the broadcast and the other half would have no difficulty in making a'good guess or of finding out who they were if interested —which they probably are not. I note further that this prudence extends to his own name, and, to say the least, I think that to carry,on correspondence of this nature behind a "nom de plume" is hardly in accordance with the rules of fair play,,of which "Deceived" makes so much. Lastly, I do not' enter into a wordy battle with " Deceived " on this topic to the general disgust of yourself, Sir, and the public. I have had my say, and I hope "Deceived " enjoys it. He deserves it and moro. —I am, etc., A. fi. J. Jeavons. Duncdin, June 26.