BENEVOLENCE OR DISGUISE?

Radio Record, Volume III, Issue 41, 24 April 1930, Unnumbered Page

BENEVOLENCE OR DISGUISE?

AN interesting if not humorous history surrounds the rather impossible terms of the Canterbury Rugby Union with respect to the broadcasting of its matches. When the Radio Broadcasting Con:pany. first applied to the local union for the privilege of broadcasting its matches it refused under the plea that such broadcasts would interfere with the gate. Subsequently, however, they agreed to allow the company to broadcast with a view to try out the idea. Next year they allowed the broadcast on the condition that this was done on fine days only; there was to be no broadcast from the park on wet days. This stipulation was duly put into effect, and on wet days there was no broadcast description of Rugby football. This year the union refuses to allow the company to broadcast unless there is no discrimination and all the matches are put on the airwet days and all. The case interpreted from the forgoing does not look too strong for the union. It appears that this body are apprehensive of the effect that broadcasting will have upon the gate takings and not wishing definitely to forbid the broadcasts have given the bullet to the company to fire at the listeners, for in the interests of the greatest number the company cannot undertake not to broadcast the very imNortant sports events that they have scheduled for the coming season. [t was an impossible position to place before a company whose duty *t is to render service to many thousands of people, and if as it seems the union is afraid of the gate takings then why did they not say as much instead of throwing the onus on to the company? Surely that is not sportsmanship!

The argument concerning the gate takings had already been the subject of considerable debate. In reiteration we would like "a point out that prominent sporting officials have stated that they we convinced that the net result of broadcasting the matches was to poptlarise the sport and not to impoverish the gate takings. Had the union come into the open and showed in cold figures that the broadcasting had affected the gate takings adversely we would have been in a position to sympathise with them. No sportsman listener would stand to see the union lose through an act of sportsmanship, rather we predict that the enthusiastic listeners would subscribe to the union through a donation. It seems that the whole position is hypothetical. Why do not the unions weigh gate takings when there is a broadcast against similar occasions when there is no broadcast and see definitely whether they stand to loose by the broadcast and how much? We suggest that the listening sporting fraternity be appealed to for help rather than- be given Hobson’s choice in the matter. Our experience gained from correspondence from all over New Zealand has been to the effect that the sports broadcasts are asked for\by the country public and the townspeople who are interested andare able go. The other town listeners, with the exception of those incapacitated, prefer music. Under the circumstances the country listener is getting the worst of the bargain as he usually does in such cases, and it is to be hoped that the union will reconsider the now unsatisfactory position.