From the Mailbag

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20105, 26 March 1928, Page 6

From the Mailbag

RADIO PROGRAMMES . Sir, —Air Donaldson did his Best to defend, the Broadcasting Company, and une naturally wants to know why? Does Air Donaldson know that the Coates Government has advanced a lot of money td this company? This is our money, and again the Government collects all cur fees, almost like taxes, for this company. Of course the Government gets a proportion of the money, but I will wager that it costs tho Government as much to collect as it receives, so really the Government gets nothing. When Government money is used to bolster up a private company you must expect criticism, and the Broadcasting Company will not escape. RADIO. Wangan ui. Alarch 24.

Sir, —In reply to Air Donaldson’s letter on broadcasting 1 am enclosing a copy of a leading article which appears in this week’s Auckland Weekly, and will add that when the financial position is fully explained, only then can anyone say that the programmes are worth the expenditure or otherwise. Some time ago an American organisation named Chatauqua* toured New Zealand and claimed that they made no profits. That may be quite true, but if the promoters received the profits in huge salaries of course they would show no profits. There are some mercantile houses in Wanganui to-day who (to their sorrow) realise this fact. The Broadcasting Company may be doing the same thing. Why not publish the balance-sheet? LISTENER. Wanganui, Alarch 24. The enclosure is as follows: — “The principle that radio licensees are entitled to information regarding the finances of broadcasting has not been explicitly conceded by Air Goodfellow, but his observations are at least an acknowledgment that the public claim of interest in the subject should not be wholly ignored. If misleading impressions hnve gained credence, the explanation surely lies in the official refusal to disclose tho actual facts. Correction of one point is afforded by the statement that the company’s income for the past year was only £35,000, and that during Several months the expenditure considerably exceeded the revenue. The latter may mean that the total revenue was insufficient to meet the whole year’s expenditure or simply that the bulk of the revenue was received at the beginning of the year when existing licenses were renewed. In any event the figure quoted is more than the £30,000 which, on a conservative estimate from the number of licenses, lias previously been suggested as the company’s gross income. As no indication is given of the extent to which the £35,000 exceeded or fell short of the expenses of operating the four stations, the difficulties and the magnitude of which should be apparent, it is impossible for the public to understand whether the coming year’s income—£60,000 to £65,000 —will bo sufficient. Discussion of this aspect of broadcasting is naturally associated with consideration of the quality of radio fare, but the claim for full information regarding- the finances of broadcasting would be justified even when the last hypercritical listener had been satisfied. The broadcasting company is virtually an agency of taxation, for no one may set up a receiving set to obtain the programmes of it& overseas competitors without paying an annual fee to the company, and taxpayers are entitled to an accounting of the funds they provide. It is virtually a department of State, for the State collects its fees and administers the regulations to prevent evasions, and no other department of State is permitted to conceal its proceedings behind a refusal to give information.”