Would Oxon. or Cam. Be Better?

Radio Record, Volume VIII, Issue 45, 17 May 1935, Page 50

Would Oxon. or Cam. Be Better?

To the Editor. Sin-TI, have Jistened very carefully to the much-lauded English announcers, and I,am beginning to wonder whether "they veally aré the best obtainable in England, or whether, like the much criticised Ameican announcers, they are merely those ‘hest able to sell their services. We have had many seathing condemnations of the English or Ameriean announcers, an-l very justly so, But anyone who has heard the eharm-

ing speech of cultured Virginians and others in the Southern States ean bear Witness that American-spoken Jnglish can be as good as, if not better than, the best in the Empire. And has he lis-’ tened to Australian announcers? As "Caius" says, "there are quite a number of Oxford and Cambridge men out here who are doing very little gouil for themselves," but one doubts very much if they "bave just thos . qualities f speech that are so desirable." Voices cf the right timbre for broadeasting announcements are especially rare among them, and as for their pronunciation and enunciation, almost without exception they -misplace and overwork the sound "ah" with exasperating monotony. There are much worse defects than an occasional solecism in a radio announcer, ¢specially in a country so eursed with static ns is New Zealand. Granted that we have many regrettable faults of speech: so has every part of the Empire, Proportionately, New Zenland has less deviation from "standard" English than any other part. A closer study will show "Caius" that our speech is better than he thinks. But he must study all classes without prejudice. A class for aspiring radio announcers would bo a wise and useful addition to the programme of elocutionary classes.-I

am, ete.,

F.W.

G.

(hristchrch