We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
BRITISH LURE NAZI LISTENERS BY PRISONER LIST
The British are trying out a new idea to get their propaganda over in Germany tempting the Germans to tune in on a radio broadcast of news items favorable to the allies by sand¬ wiching in the names of German prisoners of war, according to the Associated Press.
The broadcasts originate in the studios of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Twenty names are read daily. Ten names are repeated from yesterday’s list, and ten new ones are added.
The program was beamed toward Germany from powerful short-wave transmitters in Daventry, England, it was sta.ted. The actual reading of the names takes only about half a minute; the rest of the time is given over to the reading of the news items.
xxxxxxxx
EDITOR SAYS ELLIOTT'S WRONG, NAB RIGHT
Following is an editorial which appeared in the Washing¬ ton Post this week:
"The ban which the National Association of Broadcasters voluntarily imposed upon the sale of time for discussion of contro¬ versial issues has caused Elliott Roosevelt to withdraw from membership on the ground that the new rule constitutes 'censorship in its worst form' , Representative Cochran of Missouri has also characterized the ruling as 'a direct assault upon one of the most sacred provisions of our Constitution freedom of speech'.
"These views betray a profound misconception of the nature of the problem with which the NAB is trying to deal. The new ruling does not involve any curtailment of constitutionally guaranteed ri^ts of free speech. Nor is there any element of censorship apparent in a resolution that simply defines the conditions under which controversial discussions may be broadcast. Indeed, it can be argued quite plausibly that greater freedom of discussion is encouraged by putting the man who cannot pay for radio time on the same footing as one with money.
"Radio transmission is clearly 'affected with a public inter¬ est'. Hence, it has been subjected to Federal regulation on an extensive scale. And regulation will unquestionably become more sweeping as the potentialities of the radio for influencing public opinion ere better understood. Without restrictive rules and regulation bedlam would result. Moreover, for the sake of good taste and the preservation of public morals, a certain amount of censorship over programs is essential. There is no difference of opinion on that point; the only question arises as to where to
draw the line in specific cases .
J'There is certainly room for doubt as to the practicability and desirability of the new policy. But there is no warrant for assuming tha.t a .man's freedom of speech is invaded because he is unable to buy time on the air to broadcast his personal opinions to the world. "
XXXXXXXX 12