Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

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.

NEW SERIES VOL 3, No. 8 TELEVISION DIGEST— 3 ers who had 0-8 years of grade-school education, only 5% was public affairs. Among viewers on opposite end of scale who had college-ond-beyond educations, figure was still only 8%. Most of TV's best-known & most influential critics, it's interesting to note, fall in latter category. Practically everybody wants, primarily, to be entertained. Redeeming factor of sorts discovered in study is that viewers tend to move outward & away from TV as a primary source of social & political "information" and toward specialized media (magazines like Harpers, etc.) with increased education, Steiner pointed out. Viewers with modest educations, in other words, see TV as a basic source of general knowledge; sophisticated viewers see it as an occasional source. Guilt feelings are rampant in TV homes, and may well play important role in criticism of medium, and govt, attitudes & probes. Of viewers interviewed, nearly 50% associated TV with being "lazy," as compared with 12% who associated some concept with reading books. When it came to parents' attitude toward TV's effects on children, most family heads "conclude that TV's virtues outweigh its vices." However, there was greater tendency to rationalize educational benefits of TV for children with increased educational level of parents; 64% of grade-school-educated parents mentioned such benefits, vs. 89% of college-&-beyond parents. Some such "benefits" are questionable, it's only fair to point out. Steiner cited one parent who told interviewer : "My kid has learned from watching westerns that when you sit in a saloon you should always face the door so you can see anyone who's coming in to shoot you." Important point for planners of programming is, apparently, measure of guilt feelings by viewers toward TV. Although very few viewers watch heavily-educational shows (Steiner foimd that only one viewer in 5 was watching even one such show per month), "people like entertainment to be educational whenever possible." They do not, interestingly, like it the other way around. In realm of TV commercials, largest single dislike mentioned by viewers interviewed (21%) was "interruptions" caused by commercial breaks during entertainment designed to catch audience at moments of peak interest. Relatively minor (4%) was "too loud." Asked for comment on fact that many agencies defend irritating commercials on basis of proven ability to sell patent medicines & other products, Steiner countered with: "How do agencies know they would't be successful if they did not irritate viewers?" Study itself was giant imdertaking by any measure. Field study was done among nearly 2,500 adult viewers (18-70 years) throughout U.S. in 537 areas. Special check of 300 viewers in N.Y. area was made to compare attitudes vs. ARB-recorded viewing. Cost of study was underwritten by $135,000 grant from CBS. Study is roughly comparable to study of more than decade ago. The People Look At Radio, by Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Steiner told us he had "tried to work in several questions to make the studies more directly comparable," but ran into blank wall in field on questions of govt, control of TV and spectrum allocation, decided to drop idea. Steiner himself is TV viewer in his Chicago-area home, where he lives with wife and daughter, Linda. He has 2 TV sets, "one downstairs in the living room, and the best set, a console, upstairs in the bedroom." He described 6-year-old Linda as "a viewer with no great selectivity" who is "too old for Romper Room, in her opinion, and who is a great fan of Alfred Hitchcock." Steiner and his wife prefer, he told us, "to watch movies on The Late Show." He is one of the few adult American viewers who has never seen on episode of The Beverly Hillbillies. "I've been too busy working on the study," he told us sheepishly. Research buff Dr. Frank Stanton appeared well-pleased with The People Look at Television. He said he considered it "first comprehensive & definitive effort to find out how public actually responds to TV." He noted the study's "surprising contradictions, especially on the part of more intelligent viewers." Stanton's summation of Steiner's project : "We've heard a lot of talk. Now, here are some facts." PORTENTS OF HOUSE RATINGS PROBE: Rep. Harris's (D-Ark.) track record being what it is — as on exposer of trickery in rigged-quizzes, payola, etc. — you can expect a sensation or 2 in his hearings on ratings starting March 5. However, we expect the major rating services to come through reasonably well, os they did in consent agreements with Federal Trade Commission (Vol. 3 : 1 p2). Real danger in hearings is that a few fly-by-night rating operators, who tailor their "surveys" to clients' pocketbooks, will be exposed — and public will associate respectable pros with tricksters. But this is almost inevitable in Congressional hearings.