THE B.B.C. AND MINORITIES .
SIR,-1 brought before the League's Council the article by Mr. Harold Nicolson in The Spectator of June 25th in which he maintained that the wireless, when it gives freedom of the air to minority opinions, at the same time gives to those opinions a circulation and an emphasis to which, on their own merits, they may not be entitled ; and in which he gave as an example the fact that there are many sincere men and women in this country who are on principle opposed to the inoculation of babies against diphtheria. He asked whether such pepole should be given as much space upon the air as the medical authorities. The League's Council would like to point cut that quite a number of medical men are opposed to inoculation of babies against diphtheria. They would also point out that there has never been an enquiry into this matter
by experts. The so-called medical authorities simply make certain claims for this inoculation, but their claims have never been submitted to expert examination.
It is not only in regard to inoculation against diphtheria that the B.B.C. rigidly excludes all opinion against the majority medical view ; their attitude is the same with regard to vaccination against smallpox. Since nearly 60 per cent. of the babies born in this country are not
vaccinated, it would appear that so far as the general public is concerned there is a majority opposed to vaccination. By stating the anti-vaccination point of view the wireless would not be giving freedom of the air to minority opinions.
This determination to express only the views of a certain number of
the official doctors appears to my council not only extremely unfair to a very large body of listeners, but also very dangerous. It is the expression of the totalitarian spirit. The B.B.C. goes much further than the editors of the orthodox medical journals, since the latter are willing to publish reports of facts that tell against vaccination and some of them have, on occasion, published letters from opponents of vaccination and inoculation. The B.B.C. not only refuses to broadcast the anti-vaccination point of view ; it excludes from its news items every statement which might lend some support to the " anti " point of view. It is not for the directors of the B.B.C. to say whether the anti-vaccination point of view is entitled to the circulation and emphasis given to opinions expressed over the wireless ; the question is whether they have a right to suppress the " anti " point of view in a matter which is generally admitted to be controversial.—Yours faithfully, L. LOAT, Secretary, The National Anti-Vaccination League. 25 Denison House, 296 Vauxhall Bridge Road, S.W. r.
Previous page
