RADIO PROGRAMMES

Southland Times, Issue 24547, 23 September 1941, Page 7

RADIO PROGRAMMES

Sir,—l had not intended to write further on the above subject, but some correspondents have forced me to do so. Mainly, the writers agreed with my viewpoint. “Listener No. 2” and ‘“Farmer’s Wife” were very fair in the way they put their views, yet one correspondent made a lot of sarcastic comment about the former’s letter without offering one helpful suggestion. I think “Listener No. 2” did wisely in not replying to it. Why make unkind statements in letter-writing? “Two-Eyed” also is very wrong in doing so. He is a jumper at conclusions. I don’t mind telling him that he is totally wrong in all his guesses. I hope he does better when he attends the races. He says I should have signed my letter “Axe to Grind.” Oh, no! I haven’t an axe to grind. So you see, he is wrong. “Hitleresque!” he says. I wish, sir, you had consigned that word to the wastepaper basket, or sent it back to “TwoEyed.” It really belongs to him. Here is a little kindly advice for him: If he uses that word again, let it be to that “bad man” himself, not to a fellow citizen. Then he talks about spite. He should re-read my letter. Not a particle of spite in it. So he is wrong again. He also talks of my outburst against Mr Frank Beadle. Still wrong, “TwoEyed!” This is what I wrote: “Surely Mr Frank Beadle’s contribution has had its full share and more.” That is the only reference to Mr Beadle I made. “More Harmony” asks your correspondent a pointed question. Let him answer it. The last sentence in “Two-Eyed’s” letter is mean and little. I might say the same of him, but I refrain from doing so, especially over a nom de plume. In attempting to belittle me, he belittles himself.

The fact that my letter brought out so many others is evidence that the subject requires more than just a little airing. I merely appealed for a return of the talks, “In Nature’s Bypaths” in place of others which have held the microphone for so long. I came to write about this matter because on a recent evening, while I was at a friend’s place in company with eight or nine others, the subject of radio programmes came up. I am only stating the truth when I say that every person in the room expressed appreciation of Mr Tocker’s nature stories; but there wasn’t such general enthusiasm for much of what “Two-Eyed” raves about. I know of children who used to look forward with delight to those talks, middle-aged persons who found interest and pleasure in them, and old people who sensed much wisdom and charm in them. I refuse to say anything unkind of “TwoEyed,” so if he flies up 'again, I shall still be only a LISTENER. Sir, —Will you please allow me to enter my protest against the broadcasting of “Coronets of England” on Sunday evenings. I left my radio in disgust on Sunday night, for such stories, even if they are good history, are not fit for children to listen to. I quite agree with “Listener No. 3” that ■ “Grannie Martin” was a really nice family story and one that the whole family could listen to and enjoy. The episode that was given on Sunday night was enough to make a child or even a nervous woman dream horrible dreams. Could we not have this on Friday night at 9.25 o’clock and our dear old friends, the Martins, on Sundays again? LISTENER NO. 4.