CONSERVING THE FUNDS OF LISTENERS.

Radio Record, Volume I, Issue 32, 24 February 1928, Page 4

CONSERVING THE FUNDS OF LISTENERS.

In another column we publish an important article traversing at length the issues involved in the refusal of the authorities governing the Band Contest in Christchurch to permit broadcasting of the contest on the ground that they objected to giving the Broadcasting Company "something for nothing." On this point, Mr. Harris, general managew of the company, — has madé a public announcement as to the company’s to the suggestion which has now been made from a number of quarters that payment should be made for the privilege of broadcasting events of interest to the public. This attitude is apparently based upon the idea that the company is a wealthy private body, which has unlimited sums at command, That idea is wholly erroneous. The company is not engaged in the unchecked private exploitation of the public purse. On the contrary, it is a public company operating a public utility under very close and strictly observed government regulations. It is providing a public service and utility in respect of which it is accorded certain fees from those enjoying and appreciating the service. It is thus very directly a trustee for the wise administration of the sums made available to it. With its revenue it is required to operate four statons and provide suitable musical and artistic programmes thereat. Unlike certain privatelyowned stations in other countries, does not secure revenue from the sale of advertising time. In the interests of listeners themselves that avenue is barred, and dependence for financial support placed upon the fees of listeners. With a sum, which, even with the recent accretion of strength, due to the greater popularity of radio, is infinitely smaller than that with which Australian stations operate but one station, the company has managed to provide a series of excellent programmes from four stations. Very little reflection will show listeners that programmes can improve only as finance improves for the payment of high-class artists. If the money required for the employment of artists who give their time and talent for the special purpose of broadcasting is to be diverted for subsidising relays of public performances, then disaster looms ahead. Listeners must appreciate the point that it is their money that is at stake ,and that the company in their interests is adopting the only policy possible for making that money go as far as it should in the service of listeners. Although the broadcasting of public events entails the provision of expensive relay lines and the employment of special operative staffs as well as maintenance of the general service, the Broadcasting Company announces itself as at all times ready to give that service free of charge where functions are of sufficient public interest. But where the function is being held for a purpose quite apart from broadcasting, and where it’s being broadcast involves the authorities concerned in no extra expense whatsoever, the company lays it down that, having regard to the interest of listeners and the wise expenditure of the moneys made available by. them for the provision of programmes and supplementary service, it cannot see its way to introduce the system of payment. This attitude is sound, and, will, we are satisfied, be endorsed by every listener who gives a moment’s thought to the problem. With hundreds of sports meetings held annually-horse racing, athletic meets, cricket matches, football matches, ‘tennis matches, etc.-all of public interestand with payment to one involving payment to all, an impossible situation would be developed. But apart from that angle, it is interesting to make a momentary comparison with the situation of the general press. Since the growth of a general public press the practice has grown up of affording all possible facilities to its representatives for collecting news and "broadcasting" the result. The press is universally operated for private profit, but it is recognised that it is serving the public by disseminating news, hence the practice of freely according it the privileges required. The revenue derived by the Press from the collective sale of the news it secures free by grace of the public, is infinitely greater than that accruing to the Broadcasting Company from its listeners for the service they desire. But no outcry is levelled against the Press, or demand made for fees from it-and rightly so, for the Press confers as great an advantage as it receives. Publicity has a cash value and, as the general manager rightly pointed out, it is not the Broadcasting Company -which receives "something for nothing," but the entertainment which is broadcastand it receives free of charge the boon of publicity. We are sure we have said enough to convince listeners that in taking up the attitude it has, the Broadcasting Company is wholly guarding their interests, and conserving their funds for the betterment of the service for which it is only right that payment should be made. Only by efficiency and economy, will the company be able to expand its service, and it should be the object of all right-thinking listeners to support the company in this policy. It is to be noted that the Broadcasting Company does not take it on itself in the slightest to say to any organisation that it should permit its meeting or function to be broadcast. That is entirely their own affair, and their decision is final, and not the subject of complaint from the Broadcasting Company. The purpose of the general manager’s explanation has been, we take it, to correct the attitude of mind revealed in the explanation given by the band authorities, It is their business to say "yes" or "no," but when reasons are given they may fitly be the subject of criticism and correction on our part.