RADIO SESSION PROHIBITED: HISTORY BEHIND "HISTORY BEHIND HEADLINES"

Radio Record, Volume XII, Issue 34, 3 February 1939, Unnumbered Page

RADIO SESSION PROHIBITED: HISTORY BEHIND "HISTORY BEHIND HEADLINES"

Consular Interference Said To Prompt Prime Minister’s Ban On 1ZB’s International News Commentary

.. . 2 ® Radio sensation of the year in Auckland has been the ban imposed by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J: avage, on the tri-weekly interational. news commentary, known as thé "History Behind the Headlines" session, con- .. ducted -over 1ZB ‘by Kenneth HA Melvin: Coe ‘. ®."History Behind the Headlines’ has been a regular’ session: since the introduction of commertial radio; it has been on .the air continuously for longer than any other NCBS feature. ® It was devoted entirely to commentary on_ international news, New Zealand affairs, owing to several obvious difficulties, being left strictly alone. During the recent crisis in Europe Mr. Melvin was on the air six nights a week, supplying what amounted to exClusive behind-the-scenes additions to news received from Daventry and from United Press Association sources, T IS of interest to note that the ban is understood to ‘have been imposed at the » instance of the German Consul, thus climaxing « series of constlae interferences in Comesiic matters which have us to say the least, surpris‘The organisation which enabled Mr. Melvin to make his ‘talks sufficiently informative and exclusive to command the wide listener-interest they did . 4s ‘worth describing briefly, as is _ the sequenee of events which culminated in- Mr. Savage’s ban, . Material for ‘‘History Behind the Headlines’ was culled from a large number of carefully-selected pericdi‘cals which arrived at Mr. ‘Melvin’s office almost daily. He received most of them by airmail, sometimes three weeks and more before they appeared on New Zealand bookstalls. . In addition, Mr. Melvin has seyeral friends overseas, some

in the very European capitals where history has been moulded during the past few months, and from all thesé sources a vast amount of newspaper clipPings is regularly airmailed to him. . . Result. is, he has probably the best news service outside of newspaper offices, claims Mr. Melvin. No particular. credit is due to him, he admits; it was just that he had the financial interest to go to that trouble. REGARDIN G the treatment and presentation of news,

there must admittedly be a:certain: amount of controversy. Here are a few points Mr. Melvin emphasises. The orthodox news services, including Daventry and the United Press Association, present, from their very nature, the orthodox or’ ‘‘Rightist’’ viewpoint. The only other sources to which he could go for information were the unorthodox, or ‘‘Leftist’’ ones. Re‘gardiess of their politica] colouring; however, there can be no doubt that these

sources are unsurpassed for reliable, behind-the-scenes information and exclusive stories concerning the events of the day. From the point of view of sheer ‘‘news’’ their political colouring is an accident. :. ‘sTime,°? for instance, was the first periodical to tell the world the plain facts about Edward VIIT and Mrs. Simpson. Palme Dutt, an avowedly Leftist writer, was almost prophetic on the subject of the Huropean erisis. As far back as last March, the. publication ‘‘Query’’ outlined with astonishing accuracy the major steps which would be taken regarding Czechoslovakia. With all these authorities at his elbow, Mr. Melvin was naturally in a position to give 1ZB listeners some interesting information on overseas happenings, especially during the eritical days of last September and October. The BBC news commentaries, which were rebroadcast into almost every home in New Zealand during those months, were, in Mr. Melvin’s opinion, ‘‘icily regular and splendidly null.’’ At no time, not even through the plausible and superficial talks of Mr. Voight, did they add to or elucidate the cables received by the New Zealand dailies. HAT ‘‘the other side of the question’? should include some pungent criticism of Nazi politics was only natural. Also, that a point of view other than that of the official ‘‘Chamberlain’’ one should sometimes: be presented. | But Mr. Melvin insists that criticism of Mr. Chamberlain was entirely party criticism. Mr. Chamberlain himself is proud of being a staunch party man, and in giving voice to the Liberal and Labour viewpoint, Mr. Melvin contends he should have been ‘‘on the side of the angels’? all the way as far as the New Zealand Government was concerned, (Turn to Next Page.)

RADIO SESSION PROHIBITED---cont‘d From P. 1.

After all, says he, New Zealand is strongly pledged, through Mr. Jordan, to the principles of collective security and the machinery of the League of Nations, however sadly the machinery may have failed. First intimation of impending trouble came when the sponsor of the session, Mr. Horace Bulli, of Auckland, received an anonymous telephone call threatening that if the session was not stopped, official protests would be made, and it would be stopped anyhow. Following this, Mr. Melvin’s time on the air was cut down to three nights a week instead of six, and his material was heavily censored and eut. Following this again, a deputation consisting of four Auckland Labour Members of Parliament, a member of the Auckland University Council, the sponsor, and Mr. Melvin himself waited on Mr. Savage at Wellington to discuss ways and means of conducting the session in a manner which would satisfy everyone. To Mr. Savage the deputation proposed that an advisory

council, consisting of a university professor, a representative of the Minister of Broadcasting, and the station director of iZB, should be given full control over all material for the ‘History Behind the Headlines’’ session. IN the event of any persons or interests still taking offence at a broadcast, the sponsor offered to buy time on the air for rebuttal of Mr. Melvin, or presentation of further facts by the persons or _ interests affected. Mr. Savage was able to give the deputation little satisfaction, and both suggestions were turned down. | Reason for Government displeasure, the deputation gath-

ered, was that the session was embarrassing the Government, and that protests had been received from the German Consul. Finally, about a fortnight ago, the session was banned from the air. That Mr. Melvin had a, large following of listeners was soon apparent from the number of phone calls and letters of protest. It is also understood that several trade unions are interested, and are working for the session to be restored, Mr. Bull, the sponsor, is also considerably aggrieved, and not

unnaturally. Listener interest, which has taken him over two years and cost him a considerable amount of money to build up, has been destroyed overnight. But, quite apart from personal disappointment to Mr. Melvin, his sponsor and 1ZB listeners, the whole incident raises some important issues. If, as it would appear, protests by the German Consul have prompted the Government to ban the session, the first question to be asked is just how much jurisdiction does the consul of a foreign Power have over the domestic affairs of the

country in which he is stationed. . Such rigorous Government censorship is, moreover, a disquieting omen, What will be the next step? Are we to be allowed access only to the orthodox and official sources of news? T tha Controller of the NCBS, Myr. C. G. Serimgeour, has given’ considerable thought to Mr. Melvin’s session was evident from the promptness with which he was able to give the ‘‘Record’’ the official reason for the ban. ‘"‘The Prime Minister’s position is perfectly sound, and I think the sponsor recognises it,’’ said Mr. Serimgeour. ‘‘The policy of allowing a sponsor to

comment, through his session, on international affairs, is considered extremely unwise, especially at a time of international unrest. **The incident has brought to light a rather remarkable | situation. Had the programme been broadcast from any but a Government-owned station, the position would not have been regarded as serious. But those interested can hardly be expected to draw the distinction between an utterance by 2 .Government-o wned station and an utterance made in a sponsored programme broadcast from 2 Governmentowned station.’’ ) 7 4