THE BROADCASTING SERVICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22904, 11 June 1936, Page 8

THE BROADCASTING SERVICE

The member for Timaru is generally positive and always superior when he raises his voice for the edification of honourable members of the House of Representatives. He found scope for the exercise of all his talents —not to mention the recently-acclaimed radio voice—during the debate on the Broadcasting Bill on Tuesday evening. Nevertheless, he is certain to be reminded some day of a famous American’s cynical definition of positiveness —being mistaken at the top of one’s voice. The first time Mr Carr was entirely wrong on Tuesday, on his favourite subject of an alleged arrangement between the newspapers and the last Government, he was unhesitatingly guided by the Postmastergeneral back to the path with which, in view of his pre-political vocation, be ought to be familiar. When he was positive a second time, on the incompetence, ineptitude and general worthlessness of the Broadcasting Board, he found himself again coming into collision with the Minister’s appreciative admission that the Board had done good service. But it takes more than correction from his own side of the House to dismay the volatile member for Timaru. When pressed to state by whom the Board had been pronounced “ utterly incompetent,” his reply was, “ By those who judge a tree by its roots.” Perhaps not very informative, unless there has been occasion to examine closely the sessional burgeonings of the member for Timaru—“ Sez you ” might almost he called a characteristic bud—and to form conclusions as to the roots. The truth is that Mr Carr, in his superior way, talked very foolishly of “ incompetent political favourites,” of a staff of “ very unequal qualifications ” and of the Government’s determination to “ cut the claws ” of that fictitious monster, the newspaper press monopoly. It may be added that in so doing he unwittingly demonstrated the soundness of his own dictum that broadcasters should use discretion and exercise judgment. How, for instance, can there he a monopoly in a business in which there is competition in each city, and often between cities? The

member for Timaru can doubtless answer. Of the debate generally it is to be said that, on the Government’s side, it contributed nothing to the enlightenment of the electors except to the extent that it emphasises the intention to socialise every type of service. Not a single objection raised to the Bill has been satisfactorily met. The Board is to go, but there may be an advisory council to replace it. Programmes have been unsatisfactory so it is said—but the Minister does not intend interference with the present system of programme arrangement. Nor does he explain why, regardless of what the Board has allegedly done to make the service unpopular, the record number of 35,546 new licenceholders was added to the Dominion’s total last year. This striking fact, according to the Minister —and the member for Timaru —is to be interpreted as an emphatic vote of noconfidence in the Board. The Government, furthermore, is to fill the air with Labour propaganda on the flimsy and stupid pretext that the sacred right of free speech is threatened by a monopolistic press. But perhaps the Government expects to be believed. Perhaps even the member for I imam expects to be believed, even while he is being mistaken at the top of his voice.