AS OTHERS SEE US

New Zealand Listener, Volume 3, Issue 68, 11 October 1940, Page 4

AS OTHERS SEE US

Sir,-I regret that I cannot congratulate you upon your leading article of September 13 in reply to Mr. Fred L. Garland. Some of your writings have been very good. The one referring to Anzac Day was very fine. But in replying to Mr. Garland you drop to a level which is regrettable. I personally have very little to complain of in the matter of radio programmes; or, for that matter, in the publication of programmes in The Listener. Three national stations-2YA, 2YC, and 2YH when local power leaks are bad-with an occasional switch to short-wave, meet my requirements; and as I share Mr. Garland’s dislike of a mixture of cough cures and music, Commercial Stations have no appeal. If you read Mr. Garland’s letter again carefully, you will find that it is completely sound and logical throughout. He makes no complaint as to the class of entertainment, nor does he suggest any curtailment of "hill-billies,s Sandy Powell, or Gracie Fields." He asks for no increase in the amount of classical music broadcast, and apparently this is his taste. In fact, he expresses no desire to interfere in any way with the tastes of any listener in New Zealand. But he does ask that The Listener do the job which justifies its publication at our expense, and that the job be done thoroughly and efficiently. He rightly draws attention to the fact that you are a monopolistic concern in that our programmes are copyright to your paper. My only reason for subscribing to The Listener is to obtain radio programmes, and no doubt that applies to the vast majority of your subscribers. Personally I do not object to the inclusion of other secondary matter, but it would not concern me at all were it all eliminated. I have always considered that a complete weekly copy of the New Zealand radio programmes posted in advance to all licence holders should be part of the service rendered for payment of our annual licence fees. When, on the score of economy, you eliminated the programme chart (double spread) and retained other irrelevant matters, such as cookery, fashions, etc., you slipped up on your job. However, Mr. Garland puts his case soundly and quite moderately; and I would therefore just refer you back to his letter for your further (careful) con-

sideration.

M. T. B.

Hall

(Gisborne).

(Our correspondent is right in saying that Mr. Garland did not ask for a ‘"ctirtailment’’ of the things he did not like. He asked for a 75 per cent. cut which, with his inclusive demands, meant complete abolition.-Ed.)

Sir,-I entirely agree with what Mr. Fred L. Garland says in his letter published in The Listener of September 13. The Government claims the copyright in the programmes provided by the Broadcasting Service for the licenceholders on whose fees the service exists, and the Government then compels those who wish to ascertain the programmes which are to be presented, in advance, to pay an extra threepence a week for a copy of your paper in order to do so. I think it is fair to assume therefore that the majority of subscribers take the paper for the programmes, and not for the rest of its contents which, I think, Mr. Garland classifies accurately. That being the case I do not think the paper has been improved by the condensation which the section allotted to the programmes has recently undergone.

E. R.

Dickson

(Russell).