THE RACING BAN.

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 6, 24 August 1928, Page 6

THE RACING BAN.

THE ban against broadcasting by the Trotting and Racing Conferences was discussed by Parliament last week. The Leader of the Opposition raised the subject by commenting upon the arbitrary power arrogated to themselves by these Conferences, and the penalty inflicted upon the public by reason of their actions. Other speakers endorsed the view that the reasons advanced by the Conferences in relation to limiting gambling were sheer hypocrisy. We have already commented upon this aspect of the question, and last week pointed out that the Secretary of the Racing Conference, in his correspondence had substantially abandoned the reasons advanced initially, and now raised the question of £s.d. In the Parliamentary discussion a suggestion along the same lines was made by the Prime Minister. "Possibly," he said, "the Conference took the stand that the privilege of broadcasting the racing was worth something to the Broadcasting Company: it helped to fill their programmes at little expetise, and was it not worth something? was the question the Conference would probably ask." The Prime Minister is a little astray in the facts. The broadcasting of race news does not "help to fill the Broadcasting Company’s programmes at_ little expense." To serve the public with race news, the Broadcasting Company has invariably gone on the air specially at considerable extra expense to itself. It most decidedly is not a question of the Broadcasting Company getting a cheap means of filling its programmes. Very heavy expense has been incurred by such special transmissions. In the case of racing and trotting, for the twelve nionths ended June, 1928, 64 special transmissions were given, totalling 3033 hours. Practically the whole of that time was extra time beyond the ordinary programme time imposed upon the Company ‘in the terms of its license. GINCE the suggestion that payment is at the root of the ban has been made, it will be well to give some little consideration to that aspect of the matter. In the twelve months ended June, the Broadcasting Company gave 206 special transmissions dealing with sporting subjects, these covering racing and trotting (64), Rugby football (71), Cricket (29), Tennis (6), Boxing (9), Athletics (7), Motor Sports (1), Swimming (2), Soccer (5), and rebroadcasts of sporting events (12); the total time devoted to such transmissions being 57343 hours. Racing and trotting received 3034 hours of this time. | In assessing the value of publicity over the air, two points require ded

consideration: (1) The value to the sport, and (2). the value to’ the medium conveying the news. Last week we published a testimonial given by: the Otago Boxing Association as to their appreciation of the value of broadcast publicity. . It is a fact that since -boxing : tournaments have been broadcast in this country there has been an ! outstanding revival in the sport. All sports show the same trend. THERE is no evidence anywhere or at any time that any sport has suffered by reason of broadcasting: all have secured a marked benefit. Is it right, therefore, that the medium that confers that benefit, and gives to the public an added appreciation of the sport being broadcast, should pay for the privilege, Is it not more in keeping with the assessment of the value of broadcasting. that the sport that is deriving the benefit should pay for the benefit conferred? Listeners know full. well that their fees are fully taxed in ‘maintaining and operating the four stations and leaving a margin .sufficient to pay for the individual skill of the artists.employed. While individual artists are entitled to remuneration, the same argument does: not apply to those sports and pastimes which would be carried on whether broadcast or not. Listeners are fully aware that the sum they pay is not sufficient to leave any margin for payment to the Racing and Trotting Conferences. Those bodies derive their profit from the attendance of the public, and that attendance is calculated to be benefited by broadcasting and not hindered. Race news is worth a lot to the Press, but does the Press pay for it? On the contrary, every, facility is afforded free. Broadcasting alone is penalised. t LY ¢ . ’