The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1935. The Broadcasting Bill

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21409, 27 February 1935, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1935. The Broadcasting Bill

Amid a desultory fire of criticism that was in the main contradictory and irrelevant, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill was introduced- in the House of Representatives yesterday. Briefly, the purpose of the measure is to enable the Broadcasting Board to decide what matter is suitable for broadcasting and to enable the Government to add to the board members with some knowledge of art, literature, and education. To this end the ban on controversial matter is removed, the board is given full control over its own programmes, and the membership of the board is increased from three to seven. In these respects the bill conforms to the known policy of the Government, which has been adequately discussed in these columns. There are, however, three points of detail which deserve close and careful consideration. One is the provision in the bill that the chairman of the board shall be appointed for five years, three of the members foi four years, and three of the members for three years. It is at least arguable that the terms of office are too short to enable members to become fully proficient at their work and not long enough to remove the possibility of political influence. Unfortunately it is hardly possible to believe that appointments will in no cases be a reward for party services. The second point is that experience may show a membership of seven to be too large. Five members constitute the body which controls the affairs of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and the same number would probably have been adequate for the Broadcasting Board. Moreover, a smaller number would have enabled the Government to pay a more generous salary than £250. The third and most important point is that the Broadcasting Board is to have full powers to control the programmes of the B stations, powers which it may find most embarrassing to exercise. The B stations are in a sense the board's rivals, and while it is certainly necessary that their programmes should be subjected to supervision, it might have been better, in view of the controversy over their future, to leave them under the direct control of the Postmaster-General. There are, of course, weaknesses in this arrangement; and for that matter there will be weaknesses in any arrangement, for the very good reason that the existence of the B stations is an anomaly. The Government has accepted the principle that broadcasting should be a State monopoly vested in and controlled by an authority independent of political control. The experience of other countries shows clearly that this is the best system yet devised; but so long as the Government puts it into only partial operation it will give rise to serious administrative difficulties. Fortunately there seems to be nothing in the measure now before the House which would compel the Broadcasting Board to exercise a close supervision over the work of the B stations. If it is wise, therefore, it will avoid trouble by leaving 1 the B stations as much to their o\vn devices as is possible. If its programmes improve as, under the new order of things, they should improve, the B stations will disappear quietly.