Radio mirror (Nov 1935-Apr 1936)

RADIO MIRROR Use FREE Coupon Below £ When you were young and your parents said, "Hello, Dirty Face!"— they were referring to " clean," surface dirt. Today, of course, you keep the surface dirt removed. But what about the under-surface dirt caused by dried make-up, gland secretions, ground-in dirt and grime, and the pore-clogging, skin-drying alkali that comes in soap and water? It's this under-surface dirt that frequently causes "faded skin," pimples, blackheads, enlarged pores and shiny skin, and it's this particular kind of dirt that dreskin removes so effectively, dreskin neutralizes alkalikeeps the pores clean — lets the skin breathe naturally, dreskin is rapidly replacing oldfashioned skin cleansing methods. Make the famous "one-two-three" Dreskin Test. It's explained i-n every package. Send 3c in stamps to cover cost of packing and postage for free Travel Size Bottle — enough for a week or more. ,_ Garnfianas Dreskiix THE ORIGINAL SKIN INVIGORATOR by the makers of Campana 's Italian Balm CAMPANA DRESKIN, 6101 Lincoln Highway, Batavia, III. Gentlemen : I enclose 3c in stamps to cover packing and postage. ~T/^j£& Send me FREE a Travel Size Bottle of ♦ / DRESKIN — enough for a week or more * £ of skin cleansing treatments. ■ Name City_ _State_ Why Mary Lou Left the Show Boat {Continued from page 13) one has been built, a rival program has caused a momentary flurry and then vanished, and Lanny Ross has taken command. It's useless to try to explain why public interest in the Lanny Ross-Mary Lou love story has waned — if, as the sponsors say. this is the case. There are certain concrete facts, however, which may have brought this situation to pass and placed Muriel in her present perplexing position. One is the sudden and unexpected announcement last Christmas of Muriel's engagement to Fred Hufsmith. Another is the equally unexpected revelation last summer of Lanny's marriage to Olive White. These two events proved to listeners that their Mary Lou-Lanny love affair was purely fictional and reserved solely for Thursday nights. Still there are many followers of Show Boat who can remember once before, when Muriel left and a new Mary Lou took her place. She was gone for four months, and in that short space of time, two singers were offered to, and refused by, loyal fans who insisted on Muriel's resuming the role. It's hard to believe that those same fans will be content to let her go, this time for good. Will War Guns Silence Radio? (Continued from page 37) roar, a spout of water. The torpedo has struck. Eight minutes later, the submarine closes its hatches to the gull-flecked gray sky and sinks beneath the waves. Nothing but oily wreckage and the scattered lifeboats is left to show a short time before a sturdy ship was cutting through the waves. Bad enough when you read of this sort of thing in the newspapers? It would be much worse were you to hear an actual description of the sinking as broadcast from a submarine. That such an occurrence is not improbable is not denied by authorities whose job it is to consider such possibilities. Whether such broadcasts would tend to demoralize a nation or whether it would rouse it to greater fighting fury has not yet been determined. Like battleships against bombing planes, it has not been put to the test. Yet governments all over the world are deeply concerned about the effects of the entirely new types of propaganda which radio could spread. For example, before this country entered the World War. the only means which Germany had for communicating her side of the story to us, was her wireless transmitter at Nauen. The Allied governments had all their cables, their ships, as well as their wireless stations. That is the reason we were flooded with news favorable to the Allied cause long before we entered the conflict. But with the powerful broadcasting stations possessed by all great nations today, what might be the net result of all propaganda with which they would try to change your views, to break your moral resistance? They might, admit experts, be terribly effective, or they might be so grotesquely amusing that they would act as one of the greatest stimulants for a peace movement the world has ever known. Here's what those experts mean. Possibly by the time you read this, strife among nations may have reached such a point that something such as the following may be happening. Let's say that Italy and England have' declared war. The world is avid for news and the two nations are not slow to give it— in the manner in which they want it presented. Again you snap on your loudspeaker. A precise, "British voice clips through the surging roar that so often accompanies transatlantic broadcasts. ". . . and so we, the British people, charge that the Italian government has used the movements of our battle fleet, sent into the Mediterranean solely as a defensive measure, as a flimsy excuse to invade our colonial possessions in Africa. The American people should understand that. . . ." Sudden squeals and hisses drown out the message of the spokesman for the English government. Somewhere, some enemy transmitter is deliberately interfering. You swing the dial away from the horrible catcalls. Another voice, touched with a Latin accent, comes through. "Hello America! Hello America! Rome calling. Listen, citizens of the United States. The Italian government, in declaring war upon Great Britain, wishes the people of America to realize that it has done so only under the greatest provocation. England deliberately threatened our nation by . . ." Again a hideous chatter of noises bursts through the speaker, and you snap off your set in disgust. What would be the net result of such propagandizing as it developed into a pitched battle for your attention? SOME experts think that hearing both sides of the question would make the average intelligent citizen of a neutral nation so conscious of the discrepancies between the two sides of the argument, that he would quickly see the folly of the whole dispute, and that it would not take long for him to realize the childish exaggerations to which nations resort in order to sway their own and other nations to their causes. But what if England were able to get more propaganda through to the listeners of this nation than were Italy. It would be human nature for us to incline toward the British cause. Soon there would be movements, organizations urging us to aid the English. What then, would our government do to keep us from wanting to get into the other fellow's fight? Certainly it wouldn't order us, as Germany did its citizens, to use only sets capable of receiving broadcasts originating in its own country. In the first place, it would be impossible to police the millions of sets in this nation. In the second place, there is no law which controls the use of receivers in the United States. Were such a law proposed, there is little doubt that it would be fought bitterly as hampering free speech. Could we appeal to the nations sending out the propaganda to cease infringing 58