Is The British Radio System Better Than The American?

Radio Record, Volume VIII, Issue 35, 8 March 1935, Page 8

Is The British Radio System Better Than The American?

YES, says Stephen King-Hali FUNDAMENTAL mistake made by foreign students of the British broadcasting system is to suppose that it is governmental. It bears no more relation to the Continental systems of government-controlled broadcasting than it does the American system of private broadcasting. The British Broadcasting Corporation is one of the most interesting examples of a type of constitutional development which shows signs of extending in Great Britain. It.is a public corporation. By this I mean that it is neither a public utility service, operated by civil servants for the benefit of, and at the expense of the whole community, nor is it a private commercial undertaking operating for its own profit and at its own risk, The theory underlying such a public concern is briefly this: There are certain services which are considered to be of such vital importance to the welfare of the whole community that it is undesirable that they should be left entirely in the hands of

private enterprise whose policy, naturally enough, would be based very largely on purely financial considerations At the same time it is recognised that eertain great advantages, such as the maximum ineentive to economieal management, are derived from private ¢nterprise. T he B.B.C., which has a Royal Charter for 10 years dating from 1926, is © ruled by a board of governors and a Chief Executive (Sir John Reith, the Director-Gen-eral). The board is responsible to the PostmasterGeneral, who. is the B.B.C.’s spokesman in

Parliament. The Director-General is responsible to the board for the general.conduct of the services. The income Of the.B.B.C. is derived mainly from license revenue, supplemented by the proceeds from various publications. Every owner of a radio set pays a license fee of 10 shillings a year, of which approximately four shillings goes to the B.B.C. and six shillings to the Post Office. The balance-sheet for 1932 shows that the B.B.C.’s net income from the sale of radio licenses was £1,200,000, and its revenue from publications was £320,000. On the expenditure side the cost of the (Continued in column one next page.) |

NO, says Earl Reeves O more democratic institution has existed than the _ . American broadcasting system. Only about a decade ago a gadget which boys of all ages had put together in the attic, came down into the living-room. Promptly technical discoveries began revolutionising ‘the gadget itself; and a growing and vociferous demand for good programmes created a second bewildering problem. The early masters of broadcasting did not know where they were going, or just how they were going to get there. But the American public was astoundingly vocal from the very beginning about the free entertainment which was thrown in with every radio set. Broadcasters had plenty of written and verbal evidence that the public did not want this problem thrown into Uncle Sam’s lap, to. be solved by creating a Federal entertainment system. Thus various proposals for private licensing, with a certain charge for the programmes received, were thrown into the discard, simply be- : cause John Citi-

zen wouldn’t like that. Basically, John and his wife and children ~ have, been the bosses of) broadcasting ever ‘since. It has become what the public wanted it to be. The public didn’t wait to be asked for its vote. It has delivered its opinion daily, by telegraph, by telephone, by. letter, As the cost of ever-expanding programmes and stations mounted and mounted, and broadcasting had to reach out into ‘the world of commerce for more and more money, the struggle to measure public taste and meet public demand

. became almost frenzied. Little wonder! Broadcasting in the United States to-day costs more than £20,000;000 a year; and it is a structure having no foundations except popularity, public approval and goodwill. . It-is' the goodwill of 80,000,000 American citizens around nearly 18,000,000 sets-having available at the turn of a knob far more broadcasting programmes than all the rest of the world combined. This brodcasting is alert, abreast of the times, free from. political f censorship and non-partisan, Its directors, driven by com-* petition between chains and ‘between advertisers, must (Continued in column two next page.)

Arguments That Interest N.Z.

ON this page two broadcasting authorities, Commander Stephen King-Hall, of London, and Mr..Earl Reeves, of New York, set out their views on the broadcasting systems in’ operation in their respective countries.

im view of the recent contro- * wersy in the "Radio Record" on _ the merits and demerits of the British and American systems of broadcasting, the arguments put down here should be of especial interest. The New Zealand Broadcasting . Board is operating its service along lines very similar to the service being given to .Empire listeners by the

British Broadcasting Corporation and, for this reason readers may apply many of Commander King-Hall’s arguments to our own system. The Australian system, on the other hand, bears a marked similarity to American.

are a great number. broadcasting, where the programmes are paid for and controlled by big advertisers. There are certainly non-com-mercial stations in Australia, operated -by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but there of powerful B stations whose sole revenue is derived from the handsome sums paid them by-radio advertisers.

programmes broadcast that year was £660,000 and the expenses of maintenance amounted to £855,000. It is also interesting to note that the revenues of Great Britain derived additional benefit to the extent of £100,000 paid by the corporation by way of income tax! The key man in the British system is the Director-Gen-eral, Sir John Reith, and. it ig he who has made British broadcasting what it is. What has been his policy? I should summarise it by saying that he has given the public 75 per cent. of what they think they want and 25 per cent. of what he and his progressively-minded staff believe that the public will appreciate and learn to like if once it is given a chance of hearing a sample. I sincerely trust that you will not be deceived into thinking that the average Englishman regards the B.B.C. with a complacent air of self-satisfaction as being beyond reproach and improvement. I will instance two directions in which substantial progress yet remains to be made, There is not enough wit in our variety programmes. They are still too suggestive of a music hall at which one is sitting with a bandage across one’s eyes. A more important field in which there is almost unlimited scope. for spectacular progress is to be found in the news and talks sections of. the programme.

ever seek better and better features. EHeonomic pressure forces them to take the pulse of public demand constantly, and be guided thereby. The huge investments now also dictate that, for the sake of survival, there must be experimentation, change, freshness. Of this reaching out to try new things there has been great evidence in the last year or two, In short, the whole scheme is all in the favour of the listener. If programmes don’t interest John Citizen and family they will not listen. In all American popularity votes it is always the com-mercially-sponsored programme which wins the majority’s favour. There are perhaps two very evident reasons ; first, the extraordinary amounts which national advertisers can afford to spend for the world’s finest aggregation of talent, and second, the competition among these advertisers to win the goodwill and interest of radio listeners. Not only are their programmes eagerly listened to and given preférence over the routine programmes where no advertising is included, but very precise figures show that the publie buys the goods that are advertised over the air. The conclusion seems inescapable that the public listens to this system of broadcasting, advertising and all