POLITICS OVER THE AIR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22716, 31 October 1935, Page 8

POLITICS OVER THE AIR

The question whether political addresses should be broadcast has been resolved, at least during the current election campaign, in a very simple manner. The leaders of the National Government and the Labour parties have agreed not to broadcast at all. The solution is so simple and effective that it almost seems a pity it could not have been reached without so much prior discussion and, on the part of some persons, so much vituperation. A few members of Parliament magnified the claim of the right, and indeed the sacred duty, of their leaders to address the electorate over the air into a matter of the gravest importance. Any suggestion that there would be difficulty in arranging a series of controversial talks on political subjects so that no politician would feel affronted, and the chosen spokesmen would not clamour for the right to reply to those who succeeded them, was apt to be interpreted as an endeavour on the part of the broadcasting authority to curb free speech. There seems to be no justification for the pathetic conviction that the public is languishing for the sound of candidates' voices. Actually there has been precious little indication that such is the case. Most of the electors will have ample opportunity to ascertain the views of the party leaders either through the press or at election meetings. Those who prefer not to do so are unlikely to be downcast if the burning words which they cannot be bothered to read or to sally forth to hear arc not pro-

jected into their homes by radio. The problem that was presented to the Broadcasting Board in the suggestion that political speeches should be broadcast is, as a matter of fact, more involved than at first appears. It would have been fairly easy if the right to speak could be reserved to the leaders of the Government, the Opposition, party and the Democrat Party. But unfortunately the shades of political opinion represented in the election contest are not limited to three. There is, for example, a number of Independent candidates, each of whom might entertain a grievance if he were denied the privilege of outlining his particular credo for radio listeners; and it would be possible, if their claims were accepted, that one-man parties might manifest themselves for the single purpose of releasing political dogma from the broadcasting stations. It cannot be hoped that the decision of the party leaders not to broadcast speeches during the present election campaign will become an inviolable precedent. So long as there is a means —any means —by which proud man may unload his peculiar views on his fellows, he will persist in wanting to employ it. But temporarily the question has been decided, and the public is not likely to be exercised in mind over the decision.