1
Presumably your wish in such programmes
is to inform your audiences through persons qualfied to know something of the subject matter. Would you, however, please look at the final result, as it appears from the transcript? About 60% of the programme was given over to the comments of Mr. Pettifer and Mr. Michelmore's introduction. While Mr. Pettifer, of course; knows practically nothing about Hong Kong, this part of the programme does contain a certain amount of fairly elementary factual material, accurate enough within the limits of accuracy common to programmes of this type: but at the same time, whenever a view is expressed it is almost invariably tendentious. I could pick most of these remarks to pieces, but it is not really my purpose to comment in detail in this letter. It would take too long.
Of the remaining 40% of the programme,
about 30% is given over to the views of Mr. Davies, who has been here about 2-3 years only. He is well-known as an open critic of the Colony Government, although his views command no real following here and in particular they emphatically do not represent any considerable body of responsible Chinese opinion. I do not of course object to a critic being given a place on the programme. It is the relative prominence given to his opinions, without a chance of rebuttal, which is objectionable.
Finally, I am allowed the remaining one-- tenth part of a programme to which four people have contributed. Of all that was recorded I am permitted to make two remarks only. The first was not preceded by the question I was supposed to be answering, and is therefore out of context. Moreover, it deals with one of the least important points covered in the actual interview, in the sense that its content is already well and widely known. The second remark which survived editing, on the other hand, is preceded by Mr. Pettifer's question; and this question is one which Mr. Pettifer interpolated without prior agreement. You will notice that it is hypothetical, clanted, and calls for 2
a