EDITORIAL NOTES.

Radio Record, Volume II, Issue 7, 31 August 1928, Page 6

EDITORIAL NOTES.

Qi sreenscere i F,ETTERS from several correspondents show that in some circles of listeners the announcement made from 2YA on a recent Sunday evening that certain items were not available for broadcasting has been completely misunderstood. These letters show that the listeners have thought. the items’ were of such a nature as not to be fit for broadcasting on a Sunday evening. That is not so, and no question of the merit of the item is involved. The position simply is that at the public concert in question certain professional artists associated with an entertainment company appeared, and a condition of their appearance at the concert was that they should not be broadcast, it apparently being considered that the broadcasting of their voices would affect their drawing power to the entertainment with which they are associated. This explanation is made as a matter of justice, as several correspondents have rather blamed the company for the excision and have "spread themselves" in verbal ingenuity condemnatory of this so-called wowseristic action. The company had no option in the matter, and did the only thing possible by filling in the time with items from the studio. TRULY is the way of the politician hard. Living by votes, every public action must be viewed in the light of vote reaction. No other explanation covers the conduct of Mr. Howard in relation to the ban on racing, but it is questionable whether, in his desire to ride the winner, he has backed the right horse. His support of the | Racing Conference in its refusal to extend to broadcasting interests the same facilities for gathering and publishing news as is accorded the Press, is not likely to win the support of his sport-loving constituents, nor does it accord with a due regard for the rights of a democracy to prompt news of items of interest. If Mr. Howard is concerned to appreciate the interest of "the people" in sport and desires to protect their interest he will amend his attitude and not back an oppressive monopolistic attitude. Why did Mr. Howard desert democracy on this point? Where does he stand? WE have already dealt so fully with the unwarranted ban placed upon the rights of the people to equal privileges from broadcasting as are accorded the Press, that we are diffident about devoting more space to the matter. We cannot miss the opportunity, however, of directing attention to the letter of a correspondent, published in another column, which: deals with some important aspects of this matter. The correspondent points out the manner in which the public support racing, and cites details to show the substantial aid given by Parliament to the cause of racing in the last few years. Concessions amounting to £100,000 per annum have been conceded by Parliament. The largest individual item is one which comes from the pockets of the public. This is the matter of "totalisator fractions." Amounting to between £35,000 and £40,000, this sum, formerly appropriated for a term by the Government, is now handed over to the racing clubs themselves. Yet in spite of this and other windfalls enumerated, the cause of racing is so hard pushed (they would have us believe) that it is a matter of moment to them to endeavour to force a few shillings from the pockets of listeners for the privilege of receiving from the air news which is handed freely to the Press. The right of the public to a free Press has long been established. The Press, to its credit, has always fought solidly for the untrammelled right to publish news at the earliest moment. The

policy of suppression adopted by the Racing interests is utterly opposed to the welfare of the public, and will never win public approval. Resentment is strong against it, of that the authorities may be assured. | F |