THE PROGRAMME PROBLEM

Southland Times, Issue 20011, 27 October 1926, Page 14

THE PROGRAMME PROBLEM

MONEY IS THE SOLUTION. Wellington, October 7. A discussion in progress in the correspondence columns of the Auckland papers emphasises the chief difficulty in connection | with broadcasting in New Zealand —the pro- j vision of good programmes, writes “Grid j Bias” in the Evening Post. As one of the | correspondents put it, “transmission does not mean programme”; it is idle to boast of perfect transmission if the matter which is sent out is not worth listening to. As a matter of fact, the more nearly perfect the technical transmission is, the more emphatic is the need for good performers; a good broadcasting station is brutally frank, and hides no defect in performance. Faults in singing and playing that might slip past in a theatre are horribly evident in the intimate little circle round the receiver. It Is, of course, absurd to expect the New Zealand Broadcasting Company to obtain the services of the world’s best artists, such as are more or less readily available in England and America; but it is reasonable to expect it to do its utmost to have the best talent in New Zealand. The need for really good performers applies particularly to those who are permanently attached to the studio. Soloists and group performers, and the announcers, performing day after day, naturally come under more persistent criticism than occasional visitors, and it should be the aim of the company to build up with its organisation a party of musicians who need not fear comparison with any others. It is well-known that many broadcasting artists introduced to the public chiefly by radio have risen to world fame, and have become the source of the utmost pride on the part of their employers. There should be no difficulty in obtaining the service of first-class artists when the quality of broadcasting has established itself technically as really and consistently good, and when the remuneration available is appro- I priate to the service and ability of the performers. A few days ago it was stated I that there were 6500 listeners’ licenses cur- ’ rent, with an apparently regular increment I of 300 per week. If the increase continues at anything like this rate —and it seems more likely to be greater than less—there will be 10,000 licenses by the end of the year. That will give the broadcasting company a revenue of £12,500 a year. As no indication of the company’s policy in the matter has been published, it is impossible to say how much of the revenue it is proposed to spend on the programmes, or whether the permitted profit of 7£ per cent, on capital is to be made the first ,charge on the revenue. The indicated revenue, equally divided between the four stations, represents, roughly, £6O a w’eek each, making no allowance for head office expenses, j This seems a lot of money, but it will not go very far, for each station requires its operating staff and its permanent musicians. If, however, the services are kept up to the highest possible standard permitted by the revenue, the number of listeners and of license fees will grow indefinitely, and better and better talent will become available. This is in a way asking the company to give service to the limit, and that is indeed its only hope of real success. But the listener must play his part: he must pay his fee. Let him growl if he likes, but if he is not prepared to pay he has no right to growl; it is only his money that can remedy the grievance.