What of Parliamentary Speech?

Radio Record, 12 June 1936, Page 16

What of Parliamentary Speech?

Psychological Reasons for Oratorical Styles" from the House

improve eventually the standard of speech among members, according to Mr. Leo du Chateau, well-known theatrical producer, of . Wellington, who in an interview last week with the "Radio Record" spoke of the psychological effect of the presence of live microphones above the floor of the House. Mr. du Chateau insisted that he did. not wish ‘to set himself up as either a critic or an authority in speaking of Parliamentary broadcasts, but rather to confine himself to an analysis of the considerading which mata far coonod or pnoor sneaking’ _- . B ROADCASTS from Parliament cannot fail to

p tse vases eee ‘for the listening audience. Last week Mr. Farquhar Young, of Christ--church, a prominent tutor of voice productioly ‘was quoted throughout the Dominion in this eriticism of the standard of the average speaker heard from the House of Re-

presentatives in broadcast relays. . Bx--eessive shouting and nasality were the major charges he laid at the door of .the House as far as their broadcast speeches were concerned. "We .are listening to it in our own homes now, and, frankly, it is not good enough," he remarked. Listeners may ask themselves what is not good enough.

The only answer to such a query is that the standard of public speech is not good enough for New Zealand children and adults-particularly the children-to follow and: imitate in their own spheres of activity. .Not for a moment does the "Radio Record" suggest that the qualification of Parliamentary membership lies in the abilitv

to juggle words so that they will be an oratorical model. for those who may choose to listen. Political thought and significance count for more than rhetoric. But when the listening public has thrust upon it the task of hearing perhaps ‘five gentlemen following one another in gq debate on a Bill. broadcast from the four high-power stations of New. Zealand covering the course of an evening that had promised a couple of hours of sheer entertainment, the public is naturally, liable to become critical. From the public at large the criticism is not so likely to take the form of an attack upon the oratorical qualities of the speakers as upon the political suggestions contained in. tlie broadcast Parliamentary utterances. And political considerations must be openly, divorced from oratory, for no one would be so foolish. as to acclaim a policy f. the simple reason that it. might be presented by the best speaker in the House. Nevertheless there is a considerable body of thought which refuses to be convinced that a good piece of

statesmanship can be couched in "uncultured" accents and phrases. , Before the broadcasting of procedure in ‘the House, members were able to express themselves with untrammelled freedom among their fellow members, But the question of free expression in broadcasts naturally became a sore one, for there were present, behind the microphone, thousands of listeners in the "public gallery" who were ready to accept or reject the faults picked out unconsciously by the "mike." That is why Leo du Chateau says: "When members of Parliament realise what a tell-tale the microphone is, they will adjust their speech to the weigh of responsibility they feel they have toward thei ’ _ ‘listeners. But I am sure that even at this stare"

there is a definite effort to be more particular over the air than when the House is discussing \ business while the microphones are dead. T

have been along to the House when there is no broadcast of debate in progress, and . T have listened to broadcasts of the

speeches. I am convinced that members speak more freely when they know that the ‘mikes’ are dead than when broadeasts are being carried out." This was one of the psychological angles of the business which Mr. du Chateau developed in his chat with the "Radio Record." He compared the freedom of speech, the colloquialisms,

for instance, of the man talking to a friend on the kerbstone, with the same fellow asked to speak to. an audience which he knows numbers a hundred or so. Where has that freedom of expression, that naturalness, gone? It has disappeared in the welter of apprehension which surrounds the appearance of an artist before an un-dreamed-of audience.

Not that the "naturalness" of ordinary debate in the House is forced, but the difference comes in where the speaker is expected to present his case before a "gallery" infinitely greater than that which can be accommodated within the walls of Parliament Buildings. The tendency then is to become careful, first of all, in the matter of choice of words-in few cases a weak point among members who have fought their way to Parliament through a hard election campaign. Allowing that the member. commands a fair choice of words and telling phrases, continued Mr. du Chateau, the next consideration is that of presentation, which in broadcasts so far has been both poor and good. Shouting, bringing the voice "forward" instead , of controlling the tones correctly, has ruined several speeches ' which otherwise would have been really effective. Further than this, there is a great advantage to listeners in that the Parliamentary speakers (Continued next page.)

must of necessity become more sincere in their statements, and must adhere strictly to the truth. In broadcasts there is no such thing as a case of "misreporting," for there are always thousands of listeners ready to pounce on the smallest divergence from the truth of any claim. But as far as public speaking was concerned on those nights when menbers knew they were being broadcast to the nation, there was & subconscious influence at work among thdse taking ‘part in the debates. When a long-distance call was put through from Wellington to Christchurch or Auckland on some ordinary ofiice business, the average man was inclined to raise the pitch of his yoite us though the Post and Telegraph Department were not carrying out thelr work in keeping the voices on a good lerel. of yolume. © But all this was ly "Womeraae 1

usually unnecessary, for talking on long-distance nowadays called for no greater volume of voice than talking by telephone to someone across the street. But it was doubtless a subconscious contributory reason among Parliamentary speakérs that when they’ wished their broadcast words to impress the’ farmers of, say, Northern Auckland, they raised their voice so that it should "carry" the required distance. , Although the Hon. Mr. Nash was the best speaker to have been broadcast, his stridency in excited moments detracted from the oratorical value of his speech. The Prime Minister’s controlled tones were impressive for their sincevity. The Hon, F. Langstone, although a faster speaker than most, was able to convey his message tellingly enough in broadeasts, and the Rt, Hon. J. G Coates was another politician whose words were inclined to run away with him to the detriment of their smoothness of effect. Mr. Du Chateau.

agreed that the Rev. Clyde Carr was One of the most forceful speakers, both in ordinary House business and in broadeasts. No matter how many times an experienced actor may appear before the public, there was often a nervousness lest he should make a mistake which would be recognised among the audience. The same principle applied When members of Parliament appeared before the live microphone. The pres+ ence of the three black objects above them was enough to make thé speakers talk carefully, with sincerity and truth, whether they spoke with stridency, nasality or perfection.