particular or general. The White Paper tells us that this power has never been formally used. I do not know what the significance of the word 'formally,' is. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us when he replies. But the mere fact that there is a veto-what the White Paper calls, the ultimate sanction is enough; it is the big stick, and although it has never been formally used, it is there, and it has all the effects of a deterrent. It has a definite unnerving effect on the B. B. C. There is no doubt that under the system as it is the Government are adequately safeguarded. The only question which is still open, and is wide open, is whether the public are adequately safeguarded from undue Government interference, that is a thing about which I am not clear. In fact I am less clear about it since I heard the speech of the Lord President of the Council today.

* *

*

"What we want to ensure in this country is that the B. B. C. should become an effective instrument of democracy. But I do not believe it will ever become an effective instrument of democracy while controversy on the air is confined to academic debates and arguments about abstract theories. We should have hard-hitting discussions on issues when they are red hot. What does it matter if they embarrass the Government, or if they embarrass the Opposition? That is quite beside the point. *

*

*

"There are two views on this matter of political controversy in the B. B. C. Either it is treated as something which if it is impartially done is incredibly dullwhich it is—or which if it is not impartially done, is not quite nice, and ought to be under strict control. In our overseas programmes there is an entirely different attitude. Anyone who has broadcast in the Overseas Service during the war will know what is going to happen under this new system which the Lord President of the Council has told us about today, but in the old days, subject to strategic questions and matters of security, you were perfectly free to say on the air what you liked to Europe and America. But the moment you get on the Home Service it is entirely different. The whole attitude is inhibited, panicky and jittery. From personal experience covering a number of years, I would say that it is not the fault of the staff, or even of the executives of the B. B. C., who I believe want to be enterprising and yet have a great sense of responsibility. It is the fault, quite definitely, of the system, that is a thing which wants looking into, and ought to be looked into now without delay.

* * *""

Sir IAN FRASER (Lonsdale). "I do not want to start any controversy here except to make this one observation about the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth. He says we ought to have more controversy, as if it were the B. B. C. which was holding back. I can assure him that that is not so and with the exception of controversy at a time when a matter is coming up for debate in Parliament, there is no withholding save the view of the broadcaster as to the amount of that particular kind of programme that the listener will accept." Mr. BRACKEN. "I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I really do think that he is not doing any great service to the B. B. C. by ignoring certain facts. For instance, before the war, when the then right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) implored the Governors of the B. B. C. to give him an opportunity to state to the country the desperate dangers it was entering upon by the squalid policy of appeasement, the B. B. C. refused to give him an opportunity to speak." Sir I. FRASER. "That is unfortunately true, and since the matter has come out it is quite right that it should be ventilated. May I say that at that time the elder Statesmen, of whom Lloyd George was one, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) another and Sir Austen Chamberlain a third, all joined together in representing that there was too much subservience on the part of the B. B. C. to the Whips' Rooms in relation to party broadcasts. The B. B. C. was engaging in frank and fearless controversy, and it was putting on first one party and then the other, but it came to take advice from the Whips' Room as to who it should put on. The right hon. Member for Woodford, being unhappily not a white-headed boy of the Whips at that time, was frowned upon. It was very wrong that the Governors of that time-I was one of them-should have taken that view, but things looked so differently afterwards. * * *

"A comparison is often made between British and American broadcasting. In my considered judgment, based upon some experience of listening in both countries, some of the high spots of the American programmes are brighter and better than some of ours, but there is no question that, over the hours of the day and night, for sustained good quality of broadcasting, there is nothing as good as our service. * * *""

Mr. HAYDEN DAVIES (St. Pancras, South-West). "The freedom of the Press is tied up with the freedom of the air, and therefore, this Debate on broadcasting is

of fundamental importance to the whole question of expression, entertainment, news and information. I am bound to ask from this side of the Committee why there should be this sudden demand for an inquiry into the B. B. C. only. If we were told that there should be an inquiry into a monopoly, I could understand it, but from all the arguments we have heard from the other side, it appears that this is to be an inquiry into the B. B. C. because it is a State monopoly. If a monopoly is bad, it does not matter whether it is State or private; there should be inquiry into all monopolies."

Mr. W. J. BROWN (Rugby): “* * * First, I hold the view that, in any kind of monopoly, there is danger. Second, I always have held the view that, of all forms of monopoly, a monopoly in the instruments which mould public opinion is the most dangerous. Third, that the wider the area of economic life that is controlled by Government, the more dangerous becomes any monopoly in the means of moulding the public opinion of the nation. In other words, a monopoly of boardcasting is worse in Soviet Russia than a monopoly of broadcasting in capitalist America. The closer the hold of the Government on the life of the community the more important it is that there should be channels through which the community can express itself freely and critically. I hope that I shall carry with me on that point most hon. Members of the Government Benches. The fourth point of principle is that the cure for monopoly may not be the creation of a super-monopoly, but the destruction of monoply. *

* *

"My first criticism is that the B. B. C., if it is not under the control of the Government, which of course it is, is very much under the control of the Whips' Office of this House. I say that from my own experience of the B. B. C. and I will try to prove what I have said. Before I went to America in 1941 I was praetically the blue-eyed boy of the B. B. C. I did a great deal of broadcasting for them. I never had the slightest difficulty with my scripts. Whatever I wrote they were anxious to have-and, if I may say so, they 'know their onions.' I had no difficulty at all. (An Hon. Member: 'You always write to order.') I should have thought that that was the last thing which any hon. Member on the Government side ought to say to me. (Hon. Members: 'Withdraw.') We should not be diverted by that rather malicious and silly interruption. I would like to be allowed to get on.

* *

*

"Before I went to America, I published an article in the 'Sunday Pictorial' calling for candidates to fight by-elections. That was during the war. When I came back from America, I fought a by-election at Rugby and won it. From that day onwards I had nothing but trouble from the B. B. C. It bothered me a great deal. Finally I went to see them. That is what transpired-and when I am told that the B. B. C. is not susceptible to pressure groups and the rest of it, I denounce those statements as nonsense. This is what I was told by the B. B. C.: They said, 'The circumstance that a man is a bad broadcaster enables us to keep him off, provided he does not hold office. The circumstance that he is a good broadcaster does not of itself enable us to put him on, because other things have to be taken into account. For example, if there are too many Members of the Labour Party broadcasting there is a row from the Tory machine. If there are too many Tories broadcasting there is a protest from the Labour machine. If. however, an Independent broadcasts, even if he does it superlatively well, there is a chorus of protests from both parties! After that experience it is no good asking me to believe that the B. B. C. operates in an atmosphere of impartial detachment from party ties and loyalties. *

* *

"My second point is that there is no room in the B. B. C. for heresy, and the intellectual life of the nation depends on there being a reasonable freedom for heresy. It is timely that I should say this, because as we progress towards totalitarianism the position of the heretic will get more and more difficult, as we have seen in the history of Russia, until finally the expression of heresy, as in the case of Trotsky, may bring a pickaxe down across one's head. It is vital to the intellectual life of the community that there should be fertilising, stimulating heresy given freedom of expression through the instruments of public opinion in this country. If hon. Members do not believe me, I beg them to read Shaw, the prophet of heresy, on the necessity of sustaining freedom for heresy. In 'Saint Joan' he states the classic case for tolerating the heretic and not trying to suppress him and burn him at the stake. That is my second charge-that the set-up of the B. B. C. is such that there is no room for heresy. When I broadcast in AmericaI did a good deal when I was there-(Interruption.) Again I take the point, but surely the best experience on which to argue is one's own personal experience." Dr. MORGAN. "With due modesty."

*

Mr. BROWN. "I cherish the privilege of pride, and I do not ask the permission of the hon. Member to express it. He is a member of the medical profession, but I suspect that he is an indifferent psychologist. One of the by-products of the system of commercial broadcasting is that heresy does come out over the air. In America, if one cannot sell one's stuff to one wireless corporation, one can sell it to another. But in exactly the same way as the growth of the chain newspaper makes independent journalism more and more difficult in Britain, so the creation of monopoly in wireless makes independent broadcasting more and more difficult. There is vastly more freedom over the American radio than there is over the British radio at the present time. The toleration of heresy, which I demand as a social necessity, is not consistent with a State monopoly in broad-casting." Mr. LESIE HALE (Oldham). “* * I want to say one brief word on the controversial subject of religious broadcasting. The Committee will remember that when the late Lord Chancellor Thurlow received a deputation on the Test Act, it was in a typical manner. He said that he regretted very much the attitude of the deputation. I cannot give the Committee the robust language of the late Lord Chancellor, but what he said, roughly, was this: 'I do not agree with you. I am for the Established Church. Not that I have any special regard in the Established Church, except that it is Established, and if you get your religion Established, I would be for that too.' With respect, that is an attitude of mind, and I say quite seriously that minority religions with comparatively small numbers of adherents do not get a right of hearing over the B. B. C., and I say that they should. I do not know whether one can have a financial interest in religion, but I happen to be the solicitor to the National Spiritualist Union. I am not a spiritualist and I have never been to a seance in my life, but I act as their legal adviser. They tell me that they have been trying for years-and whatever the views of individual Members, they have many adherents in the House and a very large and increasing number of adherents throughout the country-to have the right to represent their views intelligently over the B. B. C. and they have never yet been accorded that right once, except as part of a purely controversial

* * * ""

Mr. CLUSE (Islington, South). "And the Rationalists."

Mr. HALE. "I agree. Really the B. B. C. would be stronger if all points of view were put

*

[From the Information Bulletin-Convention-of the National Association of Broadcasters, December 23, 1946]

DO WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES?

A PANEL DISCUSSION AT THE TWENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL NAB CONVENTION,
OCTOBER 23, 1946

One of the vital problems facing all media of mass communication is the maintenance of freedom of speech.

During the recent NAB convention in Chicago leading spokesmen, representing the radio, motion picture and newspaper industries, spoke on the subject at a panel discussion in answer to the question "Do We Have Freedom of Speech in the United States?"

Reprinted here are the texts of the several talks.

NAB President JUSTIN MILLER. I am going to introduce the moderator and turn the meeting over to him. He will have full responsibility from then on. I have seen this moderator in action, and he is one of the best. I say that as an expert who has observed such performances from one end of the country to the other. You know the man very well, but I am going to give you a little of his official background, nevertheless.

He was a student at Georgia Tech. He began his professional and business career as a member of the electrical engineering department of the Georgia Railway & Power Co. and after 4 years with that company he spent 18 years with the McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. in the circulation, editorial, and advertising departments. He was publishing director of McGraw-Hill's radio and electrical papers, as well as a director and vice president in charge of sales of all McGrawHill publications.

In 1934 he joined the National Broadcasting Co. as vice president in charge of sales, and then followed 4 years as vice president of Lord & Thomas. Then back to NBC to assist in setting up the Blue Network as a separate subsidiary of RCA. Early in 1942 he was named executive vice president and general manager of the Blue Network, and this statement says, "To him goes much of the credit for building up that organization." Is that right, Ed? [Laughter.]

In 1944 he became president and director of the Mutual Broadcasting System. The latest returns we have are that from 245 stations in the Mutual when he began, the present total is now 364, making Mutual truly the world's largest network. [Applause.]

It is a great pleasure to present to you Ed Kobak. [Applause.]

KOBAK MODERATOR OF PANEL

Chairman KOBAK. Mr. Miller, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, my part of this will be painless. I think the part which you will get from the speakers will be not only painless but instructive.

I don't know whether it is generally known, but I am one of the color television boys. I don't work for Columbia. I have been with NBC and Blue, and I'm with Mutual and not looking for a job; but I would like to know whether color television is going on [the meeting was being televised], because I wore this red tie and want to see how it looks. [Laughter.]

I didn't write that introduction by Judge Miller, that was a hang-over from another job I had. [Laughter.] If I had written it we would not have mentioned the name of any other network. I don't believe in free commercial plugs for people who haven't paid their dues to this dinner. [Laughter.]

Before I introduce the head table you see, I've got to mark time while you finish your coffee, as we don't want to rattle the speakers-you ought to know who these big shots are we have cornered here tonight. I want to quietly spike a rumor: A man named Charlie Denny, who is associated with some Government bureau in Washington having occasionally to do with our business, is passing out a statement that Mutual-say, is it all right for me to mention this? [laughter]-has more stations affiliated with it than the FCC has licenses. [Laughter.] Charlie says they are going to catch up with us if we just give them time. I came out here with 359, and this morning it was 364, and I haven't seen Carl Haverlin, so I don't know what happened this afternoon. I just don't think it is fair for a man in Washington to spread gossip like that. I resent it. I resent it for all of the Mutual affiliates, too. [Laughter.]

He made a wonderful speech this noon. [Applause.] Wait a minute. I'm going to say a little more about it, and then you can make up your mind. He really sucked us in. [Laughter.]

I object to his doing this gossiping about my network. But, I will tell you what he did do for me. Is Walter Brown in the room? I hope not. Walter Brown runs a station at Spartanburg, and he and I went to Georgia Tech different years. He studied ceramics-look at him now. [Laughter.] I took electrical engineering— and don't look at me.

We made an application in a Washington hotel room to this man Denny. We got approval verbally-that's all we need [laughter] for a 25-watt station in certain sections of Georgia. We made a study in an area between two towns 13 miles apart, one town in which Walter Brown has more acres than any man should be allowed to have, and the other town in a section which my wife's relatives founded in 1700-something. We found a section there with no people. [Laughter.] That is where we are going to put our radio station.

These are the basic things that we are going to carry out, and some of you may appreciate this a little bit when you think of your troubles. We had a big cancellation today and I'm ready to go into this thing fast.

We will have no call letters. [Laughter.] Then you don't have to remember them. You know how difficult that is.

We will have no network affiliation, because I am tired of taking the guff that those birds hand out. [Laughter.]

There will be no advertising. You don't have to send out bills.

There will be no public service programs, and then there can't be any complaints about how poor our public service programs are. That is the station we are going to have in Georgia. We got the grant right out here in the lobby of this hotel; we got it this afternoon. We dare you to listen to that station! [Laughter.]

GUESTS INTRODUCED

And now, it is my privilege to introduce (I take everything back I said about the Commissioner. I just happened to look at the man I am going to introduce first.)-it gives me great pleasure to introduce Larry Fly, who needs nothing more said about him. [Applause.] That is more of a hand than you got when you were Commissioner.

Here is a man I have to be nice to. He is vice chairman of the board of my network and he runs a little network out on the coast made up of a lot of stations big and little. We are trying to imitate them all over the country. He is an old-timer in the business and you know him so much better than you know me, I am just going to ask him to stand up-Lewis Allen Weiss. [Applause.] And, the next gentleman has an engineering background-something you need in the Commission. E. K. Jett. [ [Applause.]

The next man-I don't know why I should introduce him. He ran this association for a while. He is a past president. He worked while you were finding Judge Miller. Every time I turn around he is attending another meeting of some association of which he is a director, and if I were George Storer, I would wonder a little bit about what he is getting for his money. But, they seem to be related, so that's the way they work it out. Anyhow, Harold Ryan. [Applause.] The next gentleman is just a ghost [empty chair]. That is John Shepard III, of the Yankee network. He landed in London a few weeks ago and stepped off the gangplank and dropped in the Thames River headfirst, and now he has been wearing a skullcap around the convention. So, John will take one of those "Harvey" bows. [Applause.]

Then, we have another gentleman here, one with a legal background in this Commission. Rosel Hyde. [Applause.]

And, then, here's a man I really enjoy introducing. I think I got him into the broadcasting business when he wasn't looking; I helped set up and grease the skids for him, you see. But, he has done a job in this war. And, he probably

knows more about whether we have freedom of speech in the United States than most anybody in the United States, because he hasn't been around for a year. General Ken Dyke, vice president of NBC. [Applause.] It is good to have you with us and back home.

Now, there are two other gentlemen at the head table, but you can't see them. They high-hatted us and refused to sit here. But, we will ask them to rise. The first man is the blond boy. I look at him and wonder what he will look like when that hair gets gray. Justin Miller says maybe he will get bald first. He is beginning to get a little bald. But, I want Frank Stanton, who is president of some other network, to stand up. [Applause.]

And now, the other man who has a social obligation. He was invited to this dinner by the Columbia Broadcasting System. I don't know what they are trying to sell him, probably a little color or frequency modulation or something, or those nine points we heard about. This man is quite fussy about his social obligations. He had been invited a week ago, and we only invited him up here a couple of days ago; so he is sitting down with Stanton. He really delivered something this noon. I am going to go home and read it over and make sure I got it right, because it was too good to be true. Charlie Denny. [Applause.] Well, we've got that off our chest. There's another man who was invited to sit up here, but couldn't come because his wife had made a date. I am sorry he isn't here, but here's a wire from him:

"I am sorry I cannot be with you to hear the very interesting discussions, Do We Have Freedom of Speech in the United States? My answer is 'No,' and you will soon see an article that I have prepared on this subject. Thanks for thinking of me. Regards."

I am sorry he is not here and that man is Commander McDonald, of Zenith. [Applause.]

And now I am going to introduce the three speakers and give you their background, but not as thoroughly as I was taken apart by that commercial that Justin Miller read. But I will cover them and when I finish I will ask each one to take a bow and then we can go on with our business without having the toastmaster or moderator or whatever I am supposed to be interrupt the trend of thought you are going to get.

The first man should be introducing me. I shouldn't introduce him. He is Jess Willard. Don't stand until I tell you to. He became executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters on October 1, 1945. To get this job he resigned as the manager of radio station WBT, Charlotte, N. C.