IRRESPONSIBLE CRITICISM

Radio Record, Volume III, Issue 8, 6 September 1929, Page 6

IRRESPONSIBLE CRITICISM

WE think every licensed listener may legitimately feel resentment at the irresponsible attack upon the broadcasting service recently made by the musical critic of the "Sun," a paper published in Christchurch. Resentment of this attack may be based upon its. unfairness, the inadequacy of the critic’s capacity and experience, and the injury to broadcasting likely to be inflicted by such a discouragement of business. On his own showing-as is revealed in a summary of the case given in our front page article-this critic is not, and never has been, ‘a consistent listener to broadcast music, and was not equipped with even so humble a radio set as a crystal receiver. For the purpose of his attack, he borrowed froth a music firm in Christchurch, which had recently added a radio department to its activities, a five-valve set, and devoted himself for five whole nights to listening to the programmes dispensed by 3YA. On this lengthy and comprehensive experience he took it on himself to criticise the whole broadcasting service, more particularly its musical side. Obviously, with this limited experience the critic’s capacity for the task he undertook is questionable. His bias in relation to his personal tastes will be sufficiently revealed to listeners by citation of his main recommendations. First he wants more classical music, in order to "educate the public" in its appreciation of such music, as to which, we are pompously assured, "there is no music less dull than that of the classics." In the second place, this critic wants more high-class gramophone records. In the third place, he wants better artists-although the'majority of those whom he named as being desirable to employ have been employed and the others have not been available. Fourthly, and finally,. this critic makes the sapient suggestion "that the absolute coritrol of the musical programmes must ‘ be put into the hands of a capable body of musicians." ~ THE suggestions of this immature critic will he sufficiently familiar | to experienced listeners to be discounted at their birth. We are not concerned to expose further the wnoriginality and futility of the suggestions made. All those listeners who have had experience over recent years,and who are paying for the service they are receiving will recognise the advancement that has been made. in improving the service. The point we are mainly concerned with is to protest against the unfair attack by a newspaper upon the radio broadcasting business to the injury of such business. We do not resent in the slightest any

fair criticism that canibe, or is, levelled against the Radio Broadcasting vy Company. It is not above criticism. It,is quite open to attack in fields where it can be shown it is failing to meet the public want. It has’ not attained perfection by any means, but we believe it is honestly , striving to give a good service, and we think it quite inexcusable for — any newspaper to assign a member of its regular or associated staff to vent an attack upon the service by a person with so inadequate a capacity for the task as is displayed by "Pied Piper." A newspaper may quite rightly regard itself as a guardian of the public interest where the public is in peril, but before any attack of this nature is levelled by a reputable paper care should be taken to see that the charges made are justified, that sufficient inquiry and research has been made into. the easé to warrant attack, and thaf no suggestion of self-interest or competitive interest is involved, and more particularly care should be taken that the law is observed. Listeners may. be surprised to learn that _we have every reason for believing that "Pied Piper" played the part of .. a radio pirate whén listening to SYA. If the facts as given are correct, he borrowed a set from a radio dealer whose license «oes not cov the use on loan, although it permits demonstration with a view to sal¢ On the facts, "Pied Piper" would seem to have committed the sam offence for which an unlicensed listener in Wellington was recently fined £10.. Will the radio inspector please investigate, and if the facts are correct take the necessary action? Listeners, we think, would enjoy seeing this case pushed to finality and witnessing such an experienced critic’ being fined for piracy.