The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1945. LISTENING IN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 278, 24 November 1945, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1945. LISTENING IN

■yUERE will never be unanimity in regard to radio programmes. Tastes vary so much that until somebody invents a radio capable of providing several programmes at the same time for separate people in the same house, there will always be argument as to what station should be tuned into. In that respect the radio lacks something it will never quite make up. By comparison the newspaper is something which the individual can have to himself when he can lay hands on it. He can sit in the cosiest corner of the room and read without being disturbed by the grunts of disapproval from others vented St certain types of radio .programmes, or byconstant knob twisting. Unless the politicians of the day can change human nature, they will never quite eradicate the criticism levelled at the types of programmes broadcast. The best they can do in the circumstances, is to provide programmes which interest the greatest number, and endeavour to give all sections consideration. That is a much more difficult task than it seems. In certain sections of the community Parliamentary debates hold first place when it comes to satisfying the listening-in appetite, and if those debates were on a higher plane than they usually are there is no doubt the demand for them would be greater. There is very grave doubt, however, as to whether the existing appetite for such debates warrants New Zealand’s major station being devoted to them all the time the House is sitting. Do a majority of people want Parliamentary broadcasts? That question should be seriously examined and answered by the broadcasting authorities. If people do want them, do they want them to the extent that they are broadcast to-day? Would it not be better to reserve the evening sessions only for the House for broadeasting? These are questions which face editors of newspapers, who find them just as difficult as no doubt the broadcasting people do. If a man is keen on racing he is sadly disappointed if the acceptors for the New Zealand Cup meeting are not published. A glorious leading article in the same issue, on service to humanity, leaves him quite cold if the racing page is not as fully up to date as it might be. That truth, brought home so often to newspaper editors, who want, within the columns at their disposal, to do the best they can for all, is now facing the broadcasting authorities in increasing degree, and some attempt to examine whether all tastes are being satisfied in the hours available should be made. An overhaul of broadcasting programme is necessary. Whether a truer appreciation of the position can be gained by consulting the listeners is difficult to say. Listeners, while harshly critical, are lazy when it comes to positive action. They moan, but they won’t act. If a referendum was taken some indication would be obtained no doubt, but would it be a true indication, if only the interested voted? If a referendum was to be made compulsory (which is far from likely) the result would probably be such a shock to those who looked to it to guide them, that not only would Parliamentary broadcasts disappear, but many other sessions on the radio, fondly looked upon to-day as desirable, would be obliterated for ever.

Three aspects have to be borne in mind in an approach to this problem, three fundamental beliefs among those who write—(l) If you can give what the public wants to hear the programmes and policy will be successful; (2) the public ranges from the preacher in the pulpit to the sinner in the dock; (3) if a station broadcasts what it thinks the public wants to hear, it must not condemn the publie too quickly, nor too harshly, in its reactions, but examine carefully the station’s own judgment. The judgment of the public as rarely penetrates the sanctity of a broadcasting editor’s room as it does the “fount of wisdom’’ in a newspaper office. It is best heard in an average home, when the youngest listener, anticipating “jive,” hears a Minister of file Crown telling the world that railway refreshment rooms need improvement, or when the head of the house, expecting to get tips on the New Zealand Cup meeting, hears somebody blowing- a trumpet, or when the lady of the house, expecting to hear Paul Robeson sing “Bonnie, Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond,” or Sidney McEwan sing “Road to the Isles,” hears a hospital matron telling how difficult things are in China. If a broadcasting service can give what the public wants to hear, amt not what it thinks the public ought to hear, it will be popular. Whether it will be doing good thereby is another story, because the public, even though it clings tenaciously to that illusion about “one man one vote, one vote one value,” is such a rotten judge of itself and of what it wants. Thst applies as equally to life as a whole as to the quality of radio programmes.