THE B.B.C. AND A CENSORSHIP
[To the Editor of TILE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Your contributor "Janus" appeared singularly dis- ingenuous last week, in suggesting that Mr. Thurtle's question in Parliament on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Broadcast meant that, presumably, the Labour Party is in favour of a B.B.C. censorship. Is anyone in favour of a censorship, excepting those who happen to be in a position to impo-33 one on the opinions of those with whom they disagree ? To me, Mr. Thurtle's question was quite obviously designed to draw public attention to the fact of such censorship. " Janus " says : " The suggestion that the chief officer of the National Church should have his address scrutinised, and . . . objected to by Sir John Reith or anyone else, is manifestly pre- posterous."
Why ? It is not so long ago that an unemployed man who was to talk on the effect of unemployment (surely as high an authority on that particular subject as the Arch- bishop may be said to be on his ?) was driven to protest via the microphone that his manuscript speech had been so ruthlessly mutilated that he could not conscientiously give the address. That is one case. Would " Janus " maintain that this type of censorship " has not been applied in others, notably in the case of free criticism of the Arch- bishop's Doctrines ? I cannot agree with your contributor that what is " manifestly preposterous " in the one case is not so in the other.
According to Janus," " It is open to any man, woman or child to disagree with what the Archbishop said." But not, I suggest, at the microphone, where competent disagree- ment could reach the homes of the people ! Not at the microphone, where British justice and fair play is often enough upheld, but behind which it is so seldom practised.- -
Previous page
