FREEDOM OF THE AIR

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 July 1938, Page 5

FREEDOM OF THE AIR

AMERICAN CRITICISM OF BRITAIN CENSORSHIP CONDEMNED. IMPRESSIONS OF AUSTRALIAN VISITOR. NEW YORK, June 29. “ ‘The British once led us in matters of freedom of speech, of the Press, and of expression generally,’ said Mr Sarnoff, president of the Radio Corporation of America to me, ‘but are now apparently leaving it to America to develop freedom of the air and are themselves introducing a system of voluntary censorship which does not appeal to the American sense of democratic fair play, even in times of crisis’."

Thus Mr Herbert Brookes summed up one of the most important impressions left on his mind following on a study of broadcasting practices and politics. He is leaving for England tomorrow to continue his inquiry in Britain. Mr Brookes stressed to the Associated Press that Mr Sarnoff’s viewpoint was also maintained by other important broadcasting executives with whom he had consulted, notably Mr Paley, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System. Indeed both large and small broadcasting stations were unanimous in protecting the American system of freedom of the air.

Mr Brookes pointed out that his investigations showed the following methods by which this was achieved: Firstly, scripts, were not subjected to censorship, save in regard to libellous or indecent matter. Secondly, broadcasting stations invite air debates on controversial subjects, even such as Communism.

Broadcasting stations did not accept payment for time bn the air in certain instances of a political nature,’ but gave both sides time free. Mr Brookes indicated that American broadcasting stations were following with the keenest interest the system of so-called voluntary censorship practised and in Britain, particularly, where Government sources suggested to the disseminators of information that they refrain from making known certain facts, ostensibly in the greatest interest of the State. American broadcastings stations feel that there is a danger that the system will degenerate into an involuntary censorship. Mr Brookes, in conclusion, said he was unable better to sum up concepts than to quote those expressed by Mr Lohr, president of the National Broadcasting Company: /“Freedom of the air we conceive to be freedom and equal opportunity in the discussion of controversial public isiieS,” and Mr Sarnoff: “I believe a free radio and a free democracy are inseparable, that we cannot have a controlled radio and retain democracy, that when the free radio goes so goes free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and freedom in education.”