American television directory (1946)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

THE ATS AWARDS... AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF TELEVISION The Society’s recognition of achieve¬ ments in the new art has provided incen¬ tive for improvement of video quality. By J. RAYMOND HUTCHINSON Former Chairman , ATS Awards Committee T he durable value of an award in an art must be measured in the challenge it creates for continued advancement. Otherwise, the plaque, medal, or otherform of recognition becomes a museum piece and the recipient may develop a fatal psychosis that the best has been achieved. When people subscribe to the latter philosophy, art dies. The American Television Society has one fundamental purpose, namely, the advancement of television. To help achieve this high purpose, annual awards are presented. The award pe¬ riod extends from June 1 to May 31 coinciding with the Society’s fiscal year. There has been an increasing interest in the ATS Awards. There is also, and rightly so, an increasing interest in learning how the Awards are made. What determines the categories in which awards are made? On what bases are the recipients selected? These are two of the questions frequently asked. The first awards of the Society were made through the action of the Officers and Board of Directors in 1942-1943 based on available information from many sources on advancement in tele¬ vision art. Nominations for awards were open to all members of the Society, and they were encouraged to present evi¬ dence to substantiate their claims. In 1943-1944, even a cursory examination of the field still showed the major por¬ tion of television activity to be the direct result of station enterprise or policy. It seemed logical as a beginning, therefore, to ask each station for a brief resume, illustrated if possible, of programs and outstanding achievements over their facilities. These formed a basis for initial study by the Awards Committee. Final recognition, of course, would never be based on a station’s own evaluation or promotion material. Policy on Awards The Committee’s evaluation was based largely on actual observation of television productions, and the action of the Committee as approved by the Offi¬ cers and Board of Directors is now a matter of record. In addition to serving as chairman of this Committee, the writer also has had the good fortune to serve since 1939 as Chairman of the Committee on Tele¬ vision, Department of Secondary Teachers of the National Education Association. This group first initiated public observation and evaluation of television programs in America, and its findings were available to the Awards Committee for consideration. Recent requests for information on awards contained the following ques¬ tions: What classifications of television awards are bestowed? When were these awards established and why? How are the judges chosen? Who are they? Our interrogators also asked: How are candidates for awards nominated? How are final selections made? What are the rules for these awards? What individuals and organizations have been presented with these awards since their creation? And for what achievements? Is there an indication of the industry’s opinion of these awards? Does your organization feel that these awards are serving the purpose for which they were created? How are these awards announced to the industry and to the public? Does your organization con¬ template broadening the scope of these awards? These are questions I shall attempt to answer. The accompanying list of ATS Awards, together with the names of recipients, summarizes the activities recognized by the Society as advancing television to date. This list, however, does not answer the questions of why or how the decisions were actually reached. No brief article could possibly answer all these questions in detail. A brief resume of action in which the writer has participated may help to clarify the Society’s awards procedure. In the field of Public Service, in which no award was made for 19431944, one station deemed all of its ac¬ tivity to be in this category since it did not offer any commercially-sponsored service. Another station received an award, even though it did not produce programs itself, because its policy at¬ tracted the best experimentation and achievement in a special field. On December 1, mid-point of the 1944-1945 award year, each active tele¬ vision station was asked for a brief resume of achievement together with station plans for the remaining quar¬ ters. At the same time steps were taken to keep fully advised on the increased television activity throughout the na¬ tion. It was noted that advertising and commercial firms were adding greatly to their number of hours on the air and that programming was growing less dependent on station initiative. To help measure television’s advances with a greater degree of accuracy, a number of prominent editors and other personnel of the television press were asked to serve on the Awards Commit¬ tee. They rendered the Society invalu¬ able service. Under the able leadership of Richard Manville, a specialist in mass response, final recommendations for 1944-1945 were made to the Offi¬ cers and Directors. The Society’s rec¬ ords attest the official action taken. Logic in Evaluation of Merit In considering the problem of pre¬ senting awards, the basic philosophy governing the value of recognition of meritorious effort deserves further ex¬ ploration. There could be extended dis¬ cussion of the question: Can an art be measured objectively? The writer developed the first evalu¬ ation check-list actually used in at¬ tempting to measure the television art objectively. The following items were considered: the artist (s), the director, camera work, sound and visual effects and scripts. Under the item of artist (s), the com¬ petence, sincerity, inspiration, origin¬ ality, and challenge to participate were checked. Under the item of production and the work of the director, the clar¬ ity of detail, continuity, transitions, the tempo whether natural, fast or slow; the tie-in with previous programs, and staging were all considered and evalu¬ ated. Camera work, sound effects and visual effects together with the scripts, when available, were studied carefully. All this was but a beginning. Those intrinsic items of artistry, including lighting, illusion, fantasy, humor, pathos, realism, and the thousand other items or treatments wThich make the difference between a polished, profes¬ sional art form and a mere presenta¬ tion often evaded full evaluation. Some¬ times a half-hour presentation evoked an hour and half of serious discussion. It was comparatively easy to have people register whether they liked or disliked a production and to what ex 69