CONTROVERSY IN BROADCASTING.

Radio Record, Volume IV, Issue 40, 17 April 1931, Page 4

CONTROVERSY IN BROADCASTING.

‘AN interesting question was raised by a deputation, comrposed mainly of representatives of Christchurch societies, who waited upon the Postmaster-General last week. Their purpose was to seek either a definition of the phrase "propaganda of a controversial nature," as defined in one of the regulations governing broadcasting. or a withdrawal of the ban upon debates held to come under this definition. In brief, the deputation, representing such diverse interests as the Canterbury College Dialectic Society, the No-More-War movement, the W.C.T.U., the League of Nations Union, the Y¥.M.C.A., the Pacific Relations Group, the National Peace Council, and the W.E.A., represented that the ban upon the discussion of controversial subjects over the air operated against public interest. It was desired that debates upon controversial topics should be permitted, provided both sides were adequately represented. Oe "THIS raises an important issue, and the Minister rightly took time to consider his reply. From all the circumstances attending .upon the case, we imagine that, for the time being at any rate, no change in departmental policy will be made. Regulations governing wire-_ less and broadcasting in general are now under review. They have been in the melting-pot for some time, and many interests will be glad to see them made public, so that the future policy can be known. Tn the meantime the regulations stand, and the Company, in discharging its contractual obligations, must apply those regulations. It is strange in this connection, therefore, for the Minister to have made the comment that the Company, in applying its own regulations, was "sheltering" behind them. The word "sheltering" is inappropriate in this connection. So long as the regulations remain as they are, the Company must apply them. : IN the public interest the "Radio Record" thinks it would be wise for the regulation to be broadened. This would be following the example of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Elsewhere we give in full, from a recent Handbook, the considered statement of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s attitude to controversy over the

t . i air, and the policy that has’ been evolved for its treatment. In brief,pthe only restriction upon the British Broadcasting Corporation is that it is prevented from expressing its own editorial opinions tipon matters of public policy. It is permitted to broadcast statements involving matters of political, religious and industrial controversy. In practice it apparently excludes matters of religious controversy, but has exercised a firm and wise circumspection in handling, by means ‘of public discussions and debatés, matters of political and industrial importance. On this aspect a quotation from the Crawford Report is of moment. That Commission said: "Speaking generally, if the material be of high quality, not too lengthy or insistent, and distributed with scrupulous fairness, licensees will desire a.moderate amount of controversy." But it was emphasised that the discretion of the governing authority must be upheld; and that authority must act strongly and impartially, with firm and consisterit circumspection. HILE we believe that matters of public interest should receive treatment over the air, we quite recognise that a heavy responsibility will be placed upon the governing authority once the existing regulations are broadened. Listeners, we imagine, will "not discursive or amateurish debates of a protracted character. Talks or discussions are notoriously the most difficult feature of broadcasting with which to achieve success. Music wins its own way. Talking runs the gamut of matter and manner. Good radio voices are rare, and New Zealand largely lacks the. experts capable of presenting controversial subjects interestingly. At the same time there is avail‘able material of promise in the country, and it would be good for this material to be used. These questions follow inevitably upon the broadening of the main regulations, but must be considered in relation to that issue. We agree with the deputation that it would be desirable for the existing regulations to be broadened, but we cannot fail to recognise that that decision, when made, will impose a heavy responsibility upon the governing authority, for increasing pressure will be exercised by enthusiasts of all sorts and kinds in the effort to parade their. views before listeners.