A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK
MR. W. J. BROWN complained lately that certain popular broadcasters—J. B. Priestley, Vernon Bartlett and W. J. Brown —were kept off the Home Programme because their presence is resented by those who do not share their political views. Mr. Bracken's reply suggested another reason—that the public got bored by "repetition broadcasts by eminent public figures. They really cannot stand it." Why not take a Gallup poll, or a mass observation, on the public reactions to these broadcasters? I should be surprised if any of them had bored many people. J. B. Priestley is a brilliant and imaginative broadcaster, of admirable and various inventiveness; neither his postscripts nor his experimental series "From My Note- book" last autumn suffered from dull moments. He can think of things to say and know how to say them. There has been no such popular frequent broadcaster since Mr. Harold Nicolson charmed the public ear. There is probably more truth in Mr. Brown's surmise than in Mr. Bracken's, though admittedly the B.B.C. does employ broadcasters of all political views except Fascist and Com- munist. Mr. Priestley's absence is, in fact, a little mysterious: he has gifts that should be used. As to Mr. Bartlett, he is one of the best and most liked of political broadcasters, particularly on inter- national affairs.
* * * *
Not that mass observations and Gallup polls can be accurate ways of arriving at the truth about public opinion. They are interesting and worth while, but seem to claim too much. The section questioned can't be representative. If, say, 20 per cent. of questionees give one answer, 8o per cent, another, it proves little, for if another few hundreds were asked (in the same sectional pro- portions) the results might be reversed. The questioning cannot be wide enough to achieve accurate results. It seems, from the out- side, that the less sophisticated sections (admittedly a large majority) are disproportionately questioned. Can there really be so large a fraction of the community who "don't know," who have not heard of (say) the suppression of a popular newspaper, the fall of Tobruk, or what not? The astrology enquiry, too, was surprising. Mass observation decided that an enormous proportion—was it two out of three?—had some belief in it. Can this be the result of really
po
prortionate questioning? The more educated classes are, I sup- pose, anti-astrology to a man and woman.; if the correct proportion of these was asked and added to the more sensible of the less educated, it is difficult to believe that the results would be as they were. Nor are letters to the B.B.C. a true gauge. There seem to be opposing views as to why not. Mr. Brown says it is because the letter-writing section of listeners are "the intellectuals." The B.B.C., I understand, does not regard them quite as this; and judging from the specimens in the Radio Times, the B.B.C. are right. The more educated are probably, in this matter, less articulate.
* * * *
As to astrology, whatever the precise number of its adherents, there seem to me to be rather fanciful reasons propounded for its recent spread. One is the decline of religious faith. This seems, in view of the fact that the ages when religion was most firmly held and widely spread were the golden ages of astrology (which was, in fact, a universal cult) to be very wide of the mark. There has never, apparently, been any difficulty in any form of religious faith flourishing side by side with any form of superstition. In fact, as rationalism spread in the eighteenth century, superstitions dwindled. And they have always been found to flourish most richl in the simple soil which is also the most productive of religiou faith. The folklore notes of the past are revealing on this poin Witch-belief, for example, has usually been most ardent and con fiding when religion was most unquestioningly accepted. Every ag has had its Old Moores, and in most ages everyone, cultured an simple, believed in them. Today it is only the simple-mind Nor is the theory that the spread of astrology is due to a cultu breakdown tenable. Is there a cultural breakdown in Britain? 0 the contrary, I think culture—thin, if you like—is more widel spread than before, largely owing to the B.B.C. No; there seem
th
only one reason for e spread of astrology, which had almost di out among us: its having been exploited by the popular Pres Why seek further? Practically any form of insanity can be sprea by these means, and most are. It is a frightening power. Hat cruelty, panic, vulgarity, superstitions of all kinds, sentimental tos uneducated philistinism, all these and more may be stored lilt poison gases in the offices of less scrupulous and less intelligen newspapers; whiffs can be exhaled to penetrate the lungs breathers, inducing prostration of the intellect and various feve of the mind. On the whole, we are lucky to get no worse than do; the odour of musty hay exuded by astrology is not one of th most deadly.
* * * *
Why is it the fashion to decry the last twenty years of Engli life as decadent and regrettable? (Moze so, I mean, than any oth twenty years.) It was a period of idealistic experiments, bo domestic and international; the domestic ones have succeeded; the international, most have been valiant failures, but remain, I. the League of Nations and the independence of small nations (ho smashed by human selfishness, weakness and aggression), good ide In literature and art it was not a great age—only rarely is an ag that—but it was interestingly experimental. In scientific inventioa it was brilliant. Politically it was poor, but politics are not every thing. The ordinary social life of human beings in this country (which escaped the devastating assaults of totalitarianism) was happier, more comfortable, more intelligent, more civilised th before. It was, anyhow, an age more admirable than the presen and seems likely to look, gazed at from any at all near future, 1 a golden age.
* * * * It is to be hoped that women will not be intimidated by favourable critics from going stockingless when they feel like If it saves coupons and stockings and feels comfortable, why not? " Most legs look better covered," says Mrs. Franklin D. Rooseve supported, I dare say, by all the stocking trade. $o, very likely does the whole human surface, which is not particularly beauti compared with that of most of the other creatures. But we cannot even the Turks have renounced that—cover it all up. So why n treat the legs like the hands and face? Is it becoming? I don know. And don't particularly care. The age-old obsession that matters intensely what women look like on all occasions gets tedio to yawning-point. I can hear shocked voices crying, "If that doesn matter, what on earth does?" Frankly, I can't think. It opens line of enquiry it were wiser not to pursue. . . . But do not intimidated into stockings, even by the First Lady in America. N yet by the Babu who complained, "My wife damn fool. She n march with the times. She not wear stockings." . CLustus.
Previous page
