"Free as the Air"
A WORD WITH an unpleasant connotation to radio and advertising men has returned to common English usage. The word is "huckster," which the dictionary describes variously as "peddler," "hawker," or "petty jobber or trickster." The infidel who accomplished the return of this word to the semantic hit parade is a former advertising executive, Frederic Wakeman, now obviously the compleat author alter his slashing satire on radio advertising in a novel called The Hucksters.
There have been various estimates within the broadcasting and advertising professions as to how much damage Mr. Wakeman's book did in undermining the good will of the public towards radio and radio advertising. The estimates vary with just how seriously one takes the effect of a satirical novel. Nobody can deny that the book represented another major paddywhacking of an industry that has been spanked verbally and in print ever since the war ended.
The chastising of radio hasn't been administered by the professional critics and public alone, for the industry's governmental regulatory body, the Federal Communications Commission, also has seen fit to take radio broadcasters to task in its now famous "Blue Book," more formally known as The Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees.
What the FCC said in its Blue Book was that in the future it would measure actual broadcast performance against the promises made by radio station license applicants whose professions of intention to operate in the "public convenience, necessity and interest" sometimes exceeded later realities. The FCC minced no words, named offenders and cited the offenses. The broadcasters' rebuttal was a charge of governmental suppression of freedom of the air.
In any consideration of the broadcaster's responsibility to the public, recognition must be given to the limited number of frequencies available in proportion to the number of applicants requesting licenses. As a result of the great demand and the limited supply, the broadcaster is in effect "loaned" his frequency and as long as he operates up to standards set forth and judged by the Federal Communications Commission, he is permitted to continue operating and enjoy a profit. Unlike the newspaper publisher, the broadcaster remains a public servant mandated to operate along lines of defined responsibility with his radio conduct constantly subject to scrutiny and review.
There will be a good many people who will argue that radio men do not sufficiently recognize their responsibilities to the public. They will point to radio's frequently irritating, nerve-frazzling commercial excesses (and forget its mature, accurate and resourceful news coverage, so effectively demonstrated during the war). They will decry the hawking of nostrums, toiletries and breakfast foods as well as frequently low-Jevel standards of mass entertainment (and forget the symphonies, operas, forums, book talks, and sports). They will charge the broadcaster with being oversusceptible to the pressures of advertisers.
In the January sth New York Times Jack Gould, one of radio's ablest critics, stated his case for the removal of all news and public opinion broadcasting from commercial sponsorship. As a staff member of the irreproachable Times and as a writer of judgment and integrity, Mr. Gould's arguments are impressive, but implicit in his presentation is the inference that radio news presentations are susceptible to sponsorship tinkering.
Mr. Gould is employed by The Times to concern himself about radio. The contrast between newspapers and radio is emphasized by the very fact that a newspaper should assign a reporter to worry about the probity of radio, while such newspapers as the Chicago Tribune and PM, representing opposite editorial points of view, both indulge in editorial prejudices and frequently allow their editorial slant to infiltrate news columns.
Because there is no limitation on the number of newspapers that can be published in this country, there is no governmental supervision. The newspaper publisher, if he so chooses, can hammer away at any extreme. He can take any editorial stand he selects, no matter how absurd or fantastic it may be. He can weight his articles and on certain pages surround lone columns of type with solid blocks of bold face advertisements. He can also criticize radio's alleged venality with a presumptuousness that does not always attempt to delineate radio's problems in contrast to his own.
How accurate are charges of radio's venality?
Recently, allegations were made that liberal commentators have been disappearing from the air. A news story in Broadcasting Magazine quotes a letter sent jointly to the FCC Chairman Charles R. Denny by representatives of the then CIO Political Action Committee, the Independ ent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions, and the National PAC. The letter charges that the liberal point of view no longer has fair representation on the air and goes on to claim the existence of a "crusade to keep liberal commentary from the people." What prompted the letter was the fact that a New York radio station, WOR, decided not to carry Dr. Frank Kingdon's commentary on a sustaining basis after Kingdon's sponsor canceled his air time because of a dissatisfaction with the broadcast period available for Kingdon.
The incident is significant because of the manner in which the word "liberal" is tossed around by pressure organizations that are recognized as "party line" and leftist. Without applying a dictionary to the word "liberal," it is obvious that the PAC's interpretation of the word might differ from that of the average listener.
The liberal voice, in the sense that the average citizen recognizes the word liberal, is not being kept off the air. The exponent of the "party line," frequently cloaked as a liberal, is being recognized by broadcasters who are becoming increasingly aware of pressure group techniques.
In general, radio tends to cut off the outright radical and the outright reactionary. It's a middle of the road medium, or as Mr. Norbert Muhlen expresses it in his article "Radio and the Mass Mind" in the March issue of Commentary magazine, radio "reflects the trend of all modern mass media to shun deviations from the juste milieu in the interest of the mass media."
Mr. Muhlen goes 011 to write, "In radio . . . . the monopoloid limitation of the kilocycles has served to create just that twosided fairness which it seemed to threaten. The advertiser pays the bill—directly or indirectly for every program on the air; 'his' program has to be listened to by all the potential consumers of his cigars and headache oils, and these consumers are to be found in every section of the population, in the right wing as well as the left wing, among the friends and foes of labor, Russia, or Mr. Truman. Therefore, the presentation must go the middle way appealing to all or at least offending none Like the movie industry radio has kept its non-aggression pact with almost everybody "
By governmental directive radio is charged with offending no one. One side of a controversial subject must be balanced by making available equal time to qualified representatives of the opposing point of view. The broadcaster, however, is vulnerable to the charge that in offending no one the advertiser is included. As a young industry radio sought at all times to cater to the advertiser. In so doing it relinquished many of its editorial and creative prerogatives. Now that radio has reached a state of maturity its biggest problem is to undo what has already been done; to get back from the advertiser its own creative and editorial functions.
Refuting Mr. Gould's thesis that the broadcaster should free all news and public opinion broadcasts from commercial sponsorship, Edward R. Murrow, Vice-President and Director of Public Affairs for CBS, pointed out to Mr. Gould in an answering letter that CBS has final authority over what it broadcasts and that the advertiser has no word as to what shall be the content of Columbia's news programs even though he pays the bill. This acceptance of responsibility by the networks or individual stations and self-prolession of editorial integrity is generally true throughout the industry. A postwar public opinion poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Denver resulted in an 82 percent vote of confidence in radio's performance as either excellent or good. The returns stressed radio's "fairness," which perhaps may be interpreted as an indication that radio's presentations complied in general with the average listener's own general attitude towards a given subject.
Some critics contend that radio follows rather than molds public opinion. To quote Mr. Muhlen in Commentary again, "It is a conservative rather than a revolutionary power, contributing to the maintenance of established power." That established power, parenthetically, could be democracy as we know it.
Mr. Muhlen continues, "Certainly, it seems possible that in the long run—by its appeal to the common and sometimes low est denominator, radio may help to produce a superficial, mechanical unity of shapeless, unorganized masses, a deep root and dangerous uniformity of minds in passivity and submission. If it has such long-term effects, then it is doing spadework for demagogues of all political colors. It could be preparing the groundwork for an organized minority to take over and rule while the majority acquiesces in organized passivity.
"It may be that radio's principle of offending nobody deteriorates into mere upholding of the status quo. Giving no voice to extremists, radio may discourage and disable every radical or unorthodox movement that might lead to necessary social improvements."
In his concluding paragraph Mr. Muhlen writes, "Weighing the record, radio's influence on the mind of the masses has been overestimated by observers who confuse the breadth of its audience with the depth of its impact. It may be true, as the historian Dixon Wecter has remarked, that 'if America ever gets a dictator, whatever his talents, he will also certainly be a great artist.' But this talent as well as the other talents of the dictator will amount to little unless America wants a dictator for deep reasons of economic maladjustment, social frustration, and spiritual despair that is beyond and above the fabulous power of the microphone to create. As the nation goes, so goes its radio, not vice versa."
Mr. Muhlen disposes of Father Coughlin, Ford's Mr. Cameron, and Boake Carter, as voices of the past. Radio audiences these days, he believes, are less susceptible to those prejudices that do slip out over the air. By way of confirmation of his belief that listeners may listen, but nevertheless remain unsusceptible to demagogic or subversive influences, he cites the amusement with which G.l.'s listened to Tokyo Rose, Lord Hawhaw and other wartime propagandists.
The writer wishes he could agree. Actually, those suspect commentators and public speakers who manage to make their way to some microphone are subtle in their pernicious techniques. Against the ranting of the Coughlins and the absurd distortion of Tokyo Rose, Hawhaw and others, they represent the ultimate in disseminating propaganda. Here the broadcaster has a responsibility he does not always exercise; that of checking the references and political backgrounds of commentators, speakers, and pressure groups with the same thoroughness he would check the references of a potential employee. Station operators and advertisers at times are too easily awed by "big names" and civic sounding titles of pressure groups into accepting a commentator on his name value without checking his integrity and what he represents. On occasion the station operator may be unduly impressed by voice and style without regard to the content of a newcomer in the commentary or news field.
The insistence—limited though it may be—that radio mold public opinion, is shot with danger. Abuse of the air has happened in the past. It can happen again. Radio could become a breeding ground for all the viruses of hate and prejudice. If radio is to mold public opinion, who in a democracy is to decide what it is that the public should think?
Radio can function best as an interpreter of opinion, by presenting the various aspects of controversial issues and by tearing off the veil of ignorance in areas that baffle and confuse the public. Its most shining presentations have been such documentary series as CBS' "Operations Crossroads," Norman Corwin's reports on his "One World" global tour with actual onthe-spot recorded interviews, and NBC's "The Hangmen's Noose," directed against Fascism.
Operating in areas where public opinion is united, battling intolerance, juvenile delinquency, fascism, and isolationism, radio can present facts, reduce stereotypes to truth and stamp out rumors.
In terms of listening audience, the broadcaster knows that many of his best public service presentations will have a small audience and yet he is pledged to the FCC to so operate in the public interest. Somewhere in the overall picture the public has a responsibility. Basically, it is that of at least sampling the various documentary and public service broadcasts the networks and individual stations present.
Some of radio's sharpest critics—the per sons who complain of moron programming and low comedy, and in general dispose of radio as having no appeal to the thinking man—never really listen to the radio to find out what it has to offer.
In the last analysis, while the broadcaster is in effect operating a public service facility, he is still in business just as a newspaper is. The past, present and future of newspapers may have some differential as to editorial preferences and certain mechanical developments in terms of production and printing facilities. But basically, newspapers will not vary too radically in their production techniques. The broadcaster, however, may find his entire investment vitiated in the future by new electronic developments within the fields of FM, television and other potential technical developments. Therefore, his attention to the commercial realities of his industry must be understood.
If anything, radio has been self-consciously apologetic. Expert has selling its products to the public, it has done a poor job in selling itself. For one thing it has never elected to remind the public that it is the only mass information and entertainment medium that demands no direct payment of the public. Radio is free. Turn a knob, flick a switch and it's all available at no cost.
In the field of public opinion, radio has failed to point out that by presenting facts, by offering both sides of controversial is- sues, it is giving the public the greatest privilege a democracy has to offer—the happy privilege of making up its own mind. It is high time radio spoke for itself.
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, Station WINS, NEW YORK
