RADIO ADVERTISING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22904, 11 June 1936, Page 7

RADIO ADVERTISING

OPPOSITION BY NEWSPAPERS TRUCE WITH THE BOARD ALLEGATION BY DR M'MILLAN (From Odr Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 10. An allegation that in the past there had been a truce between the Broadcasting Board and the press was made by Dr D. G. M'Millan (Govt., Dunedin West) during the second reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. “ The board prevented radio advertising, while the press refrained from ami suppressed criticism of the board and its activities,” said Dr M'Millan. “ Now that the truce has come to an end and radio advertising is to be permitted our press will doubtless discover its long forgotten duty to the public and engender spirited criticism of our broadcasting service. The public, however, will have little difficulty in determining the activating motive.” Dr M'Millan commended the provision in the Bill for Ministerial control of the broadcasting service. Direct Ministerial responsibility, he said, enabled the doings of*the department to be criticised and defended in the House. The Minister was responsible to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people. The speaker said he was wholeheartedly in favour of that system because he believed that the salvation of the world lay in the perpetuation of the democratic principle. Referring to advertising over the air, Dr M'Millan said that frequent references were made to the position in America, but the trouble there was that many of the stations were privately owned, and private control could not produce as good results as public control.

“ The opposition to radio advertising has been carefully fostered by the press, which views with alarm the prospect of the development of a new consumer of advertising revenue,” continued Dr M'Millnn. “Anyone who feels inclined towards the private control of broadcasting should consider the bad results that have attended the private control of that other great medium of public education, or, 1 should say, of public deception, the press. The suppression and distortion of news and the vigorous, vindictive partisanship that have masqueraded under the assumed disinterestedness of the editorials of some of our papers should be an object-lesson to those who deprecate public control of broadcasting.” Referring to political broadcasts, Dr M'Millan said no one could have any objection so long as the principles of sportsmanship were displayed, and one could not help contrasting the fairness of the present Government with the refusal of the late Government to permit Opposition speakers to reply to Ministerial broadcasts. It was also in marked contrast with the suppression and boycotting of Labour speakers by the press. In these days when democratic institutions were on their trial and all sorts of subversive propaganda was being indulged- in the political broadcast promised to reawaken the people to an appreciation- of their dearly-bought privileges of self-government. “ I think the news service of our broadcasting programmes should be improved and delivered earlier in the day,” said Dr M’Millan. “It is incredible that news which comes as British Oflicial Wireless, and costs the taxpayers of this countt-y a considerable sum of money, should* be held up under an arrangement with the newspaper press of New Zealand. The trouble is that it would interfere with the sale of the papers. The report of the National Expenditure Commission showed that the reception of that news cost the taxpayers £2OOO and that an arrangement had been made with the Press Association to pay £250 for the service.” In conclusion, Dr M'Millan extended to the Postmaster-general (Mr F. Jones) the congratulations of his parent city on the Bill, which, he said, was well up to the standard of Labour legislation.