Editorial Notes

Radio Record, Volume VI, Issue 22, 9 December 1932, Page 4

Editorial Notes

Wellington, Friday, December 9, 1932.

THE suggestion has been made in the correspondence columns of a local daily that the funds of "that wealthy body, the Broadcasting Board," should be raided to provide funds for the Government. Apart from the ethics of the situation, the suggestion is ridiculous, for saddled with a debt of £60,000, required to maintain a higher standard of programmes, to erect new stations, and to meet a hundred and one other increasing costs, the Board is far from being wealthy, and the fact simply stated is that there are not the funds to raid. Anincome of £100,000 may seem a large sum for the Board to receive, but considering that the British Broadcasting Corporation receives £1,000,000 from licenses wlone, not to mention the mere £150,000 that it receives from other sources, atid it spends just over half a million on programmes and nearly £200,000 on plant to maintain a very Himited number of programmes for Yess hours a day than does the Board, it is apparent that the latter 4s cutting its cloth in the most ecomotnical way. If it is to be shortened by the Government then there is only one solution, and that. is poorer programmes or shorter ours, "BUT the ethics of the argument _are quite wrong. Listeners pay a body, agreed that it is one appointed by the Government, an annual sum for their entertainment. Naturally it is to be expected that this amount will be used in its enftirety for the said purpose of enterjtainment. If they paid it to any other organisation they would expect ‘value. Why not then in broadcasting? If the Government must have ifunds let them levy an amusement itax which is added to. not detracted ‘from, the license fees. Naturally there would be objections, but the public would know they were being taxed, and would not blame the oard for apparent depreciation in ropramme quality. «Taxes must be passed on and just as petrol is not watered because the Government hooses to levy an import duty of 6d. a gallon, so programmes tmust mot be thinned out because the Goyernment wants a little extra revenue. all the Board’s funds are no re the possession of the Government than are those of any private gotmpany. ,

[TO criticism, fair criticism, no one objects, and there are few who do not welcome constructive criticism, but the unfair and destructive, to say nothing of the inaccurate, does considerable harm without bringing anyone any good. A perusal of our Mailbag columns indicate that there is a large number of correspondents who seem to overlook this, and, regardless of fact, take accusations that will not bear the light of day. In fact, more balanced members of the more balanced section have charged us with rendering a disservice to radio by publishing the letters. While we do not agree, for we place the Mailbag columns, almost without restriction, open to our readers, there is something in that remark. In the last few weeks a fair amount of anti-hoard criticism has appeared, mainly under noms-de-plume. But will the criticism stand the acid test ? Published in this week’s Mailbag are two letters pointing out inaccuracies made by other correspondents, and one writer goes so far as to wager five pounds that the criticism cannot be upheld by fact. The critique states that 90 per cent. of the items from the YA stations are highbrow, Let us select at random any day’s programmes, say those for Wednesday, December 7, and see what the state of affairs really is. Classing as highbrow Grand Opera, symphonies, etc., chamber music and oratorio, we find that out of the 100 odd titles published less than twenty are classical. This does not include two and a half hours of dance music and the day sessions, of which less than four hours out of sixteen are classical. So our correspondent and his ninety per cent. is far removed from fact. What one would class as highbrow another would not, but we have defined the generally accepted classification. ANOTHER point raised is that the Government is running the service. This clearly is contrary to fact. The Board, though appointed hy the Government, is composed of business men who are given a free hand with instructions to -develop and improve the service. It is unlikely, too, that the members of the Board would tolerate interference from the Government, for all are

successful men in their own spheres and fully comprehend the technique of running a business concern, which the broadcasting service is purely and simply. The personnel of the Board’s staff is, with few exceptions, the staff carried on from the Broadcasting Company. Certainly it has been augmented by three officers of the Post and Telegraph Department, but it must be admitted that they were three of the most capable men in the Department and have now definitely severed their connection with the Government. So this argument will not bear inspection, x me a YET another correspondent makes the assertion that in three months Mr. de Mauny has repeated items forty times. According to our reckonging Mr. de Mauny in

that time has played 170 times, and if our correspondent’s assertion is correct one item in every four is a repetition-clearly contrary to fact. Certainly some of the better known and more popular items, such as "Light Cavalry," have been repeated more than once, but the reason is obvious. If. they did not do this the "too classical" charge would be laid at its door. ™ x we [T really seems that there is a section that is néver satisfied, and, merely getting an impression, rushes into print with some preposterous suggestion. The printed page is. different from the spoken word. Whereas the latter can be correctei! or amended without difficulty, the former stands forever, and it seems that-it should, at least, be accurate. We would then entreat our correspondents to check their statements,