SECRET
Executive Board
Civilian War Commentaries

1. Home Intelligence Reports often show that the public have failed to appreciate the reasons which have led the government to handle a problem in a particular way or to refuse to handle it in some other way. Sometimes this results in mystification; more often it results in the prevalence of a false (and usually discreditable) explanation. Since the worst thing that could happen on the home front would be for the people to lose confidence in the efficiency, vigour or honesty of the Government machine, it is desirable to leave no stone unturned in getting across to the public such adequate explanations as do exist.

2. To help in this direction, it is proposed that the B.B.C. be asked to institute a weekly Civilian War Commentary, on the same lines and at the same listening time as the military Commentary. It is realised that the B.B.C. already puts out much material of the kind, but either it is not exactly on the lines contemplated (e.g. the morning food talks) or else is sporadic and does not obtain the audience that can be attracted to a weekly feature with recognised prestige (e.g. Sunday night postscript or American commentary.) Moreover, the inclusion of these various talks in one series might help to bring home the important fact of the interconnection of most civilian aspects of the war. In order to avoid begging more questions than are answered, the talks would have to go on for 15 to 20 minutes. Where a number of conflicting considerations have to be balanced against one another, a dialogue could usefully be pre-arranged.

3. The details of the talks are open to discussion, but, to make the proposal as concrete as possible, it is suggested

(a) That the commentaries be arranged by subjects and not by Departments. This is necessary because quite a few subjects cover more than one Department and for that reason tend to be neglected. It is also important to prevent Departments from staking out a claim for one commentary apiece (in strict rotation!) and deciding for themselves how the time is used. At the same time, it would clearly need to be recognised that no commentary could be arranged against the wishes of the Department concerned.

(b) That, as regards the authority of the speakers, the analogy of the military commentaries be followed, where it is now made clear that the speakers only give their personal opinions, though they may be assisted by Departments in preparing their material. The military commentators gain prestige by being serving officers, whereas the first criterion which it would be proposed to apply in choosing a civilian commentator would be his effectiveness as a broadcaster. But that does not automatically rule out the possibility of choosing people who have some claim to be authorities on the subjects with which they deal. A limited number of speakers would be chosen, each to give a commentary in rotation.

4. A sample list, based on Home Intelligence Reports, is attached to show the subjects which might have been dealt with in the last six weeks if the talks had been in existence. One caution must be added. When a limited period of this kind is taken, certain important subjects leap to the eye and demand inclusion. The same subjects would be equally prominent over a longer period, but, though it might be desirable to deal in some way or another with each topic more than once, it would not be necessary to assign to each one-sixth of the total talks. Moreover, there is a definite danger of a series of this kind coming to be regarded as a procession of official apologies and despised accordingly. With a view to meeting this danger, it would be proposed to give variety to the series by including talks of three different kinds:

A. Those explaining the reasons for government policy on a particular subject.

B. Purely descriptive talks dealing with activities rather than policies. It is not easy to give details of what is meant without intimate acquaintance with the work of individual Departments. But it can be imagined that the Ministry of Supply might be able to produce material for a most interesting talk on ways in which peace-time industries have been reorganised to produce war material. As in many of these cases the Germans must be working on lines similar to our own, examples could presumably be found where security considerations would not demand silence.

C. A few talks of a more theoretical character on such broad topics as the extent to which the Government can effectively or economically attempt to regulate the activities of private individuals.

If the sample list covered a longer period than 6 weeks, it would be possible to show how talks of varieties B and C could be interspersed among talks on the more immediate and vexed topics.

APPENDIX

Subjects which might have been covered by Civilian War Commentaries between 25th June and 6th August.