EDITORIAL NOTES.

Radio Record, Volume III, Issue 11, 27 September 1929, Page 6

EDITORIAL NOTES.

‘A CERTAIN amount of interested attention has been directed to the announcement of the Postmaster-General that the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Department will in due course follow the lead of their Australian confreres and establish in the comparatively near future apparatus capable of transmitting pictures by wire. A first successful demonstration of this process in Australia was given recently, and met with an enthusiastic reception on the part of the newspapers and business houses who utilised the service. The results recorded were markedly successful. Photographs of racing events were transmitted both over the wire from Sydney to Melbourne, and by mail, and newspaper reproductions made from both photographs. The result from the newspaper point of view was that it was almost impossible to distinguish one from the other. This constitutes a very high tribute to the efficiency of the system available of transmitting pictures by wire. THIS method is quite distinct from the transmission of pictures by radio, although, of course, the technical skill evolved in the one process is of value in assisting the other process. In the nontechnical Press of New Zealand some confusion has been created by unfamiliarity with exact details of the proposed installation on the part of the Post and Telegraph Department, and the impression has been given that it was to be the Baird Television system that would be. installed. This is quite inaccurate. The experiments now being conducted by the B.B.C., in conjunction with the Baird Television people, are likely to materially assist the inception of television, but in the meantime transmission of pictures by wire is an actual accomplishment, and totally distinct from the proposed transmission of events by radio. WHEN the opportunity was presented Parliament last week of discussing broadcasting no great enthusiasm was displayed in the subject. This may be taken as a recognition of the fact that the matter is‘ not at the moment a live one. As the Postmaster-General pointed out, the question of the future policy of the Department does not arise for some two years, and he is too cautious a business man to commit himself at this stage as to what his policy will be then. Of

those who did speak, two of the three speakers were quite appreciative of the present programmes. Mr. J. A. Nash said he believed the programmes ruling at present were quite good (although he suggested a Board of Supervision), and expressed the hope that the Minister would not consider Government control of broadcasting, as it was better under private control. Even Mr. Howard, Labour member for Christchurch South, adopted a kindly attitude towards the service, admitting that there had been a decided improvement during the last two years, although, of course, perfection had not yet been reached. The Rev. Clyde Carr’s suggestion for the brightening up of the programmes was to incorporate debates and suitable plays. There may be those who would consider the incorporation of debates "a brightening feature" in connection with programmes, but on the other hand there may be some who would not! Variety in programmes is certainly desirable, but, as experienced listeners have learned, there is a limit to the stunts that can be successfully employed in connection with programmes. A high average of general acceptability seems to be the best general policy. QUR thanks are due to a correspondent, "Facts" for pointing out a slip on our part in attributing, in our editorial of a fortnight back, to ‘"Henry" the view that the Government should immediately take over the broadcasting service. In our news article dealing with this matter we correctly stated that his suggestion was that the Government should now begin planning to take over the service on expiry of the present contract. We regret the slip. To show, however, that "to err is human" we would point out to our correspondent that he himself is wrong in affirming that we said "Henry" said the Government should not bother with charging licenses at all! That was our own comment upon his view that the Government’s resources were vast. We agreed that they were vast, and added that a free service was "feasible’-but we don’t agree it would be economic. os