The Other Point of View

Radio Record, Volume IV, Issue 52, 10 July 1931, Page 8

The Other Point of View

Y permission of the correspondent, I publish a letter recently received from one of the two gentlemen who so rongly resented my criticism of their efforts. This, I consider only fair. "In connection with the trouble over ‘Critic's’ anonymous criticism of the yoluntary lectures given at the YA ations, I would like to suggest that in references to the complaints he has ehtirely missed the point, probably intentionally. ‘ "J have been closely connected with the talks for the ‘Man on the Land’ from 4YA, and can honestly say that not one of the lecturers objects to criticism by ‘Critic? or anyone else. What they do object to is having such criticism, often inaccurate and given without regard to circumstances, published all over the country in such a way that they cannot reply. It must be remembered that public servants are not permitted even to reply to such attacks and, when such are made anonymously, it can only be described as hitting below the ‘belt. "Tf ‘Critic’s’ real aim was to improve the quality of the talks, and not to pander to that quite common type which will read anything and gloat over it provided it is. sufficiently critical, he would have served his purpose infinitely better by addressing: a private and confidential criticism to the. person concerned. He forgets also, I think, that a talk for farmers should be judged from the farmer’s point of view, not from the entertainment aspect. It would be interesting if you would find space for some of the eulogies received from farmers concerning some of the talks. : "T understand that ‘Critic’ regrets that he is not. permitted to publish the names of -the ‘thin-skinned’ members of the honorary lecturing corps. I give you permission to publish my name in this connection, provided, of course, that you publish my reasons for object‘ing to his criticism. ‘The Voice of Michael,’ with the brake applied by editor, is doing a service to radio; previously it was doing a real dis-service by. threatening to deprive listeners of many valuable lectures-I am, etc., L. W. McCaskill."

HE letter requires no comment, excepting that I should like to correct Mr. McCaskill in quoting me as expressing regret at my inability to publish the names of the offertded parties. My only reference was... "in deference to those sensitive souls, who shall be nameless, I shall for the future comment more upon the matter than upon the man." I would also like it to be clearly understood that the reference to "the thin-skinned members of the honorary lecturing corps" is quoted from a listener’s etter published a fortnight ago. ; In view of all that has happened, I have re-read the offending paragraph just recently. It is that given under the title "Farmer Brown and Fertilisers," and appeared in my notes of May 22. Honestly, I think that a veritable storm in a teacup has been raised! There is at least as. much praise as condemnation in. my comments, and even the "medicine’ was administered in very. mild form! In fact, giving a cursory glance over my notes to date, I find (to my own astonishment, let me say) that well over 80 per cent. of the speakers whom I have passed under review have received very favourable comment at my ha2ds---or should I say pen?