Broadcasting (Oct 1931-Dec 1932)

\ Calm View of Radio by a Newspaper Man lenace to Press is 'ossibility of Coope By A. L. MILLER* President, Battle Creek Enquirer-News Minimized by Publisher -Broadcaster; rative Advertising is Predicted A. L. Miller SUCH information as we have on radio, and radio related to the newspapers, comes from two sources. One, our knowledge of the discussion now going on in publishing circles and, two, our own experience in erating a small radio station, he Battle Creek Enquirer-News ns and operates WELL, Battle eek, 50 watts, 1420 kilocycles]. This knowledge does not qualify as an authority on the subject, does not permit us to know what i publishers should think about ; radio competition or what they juld do about it. Our opinions K1 the matter, such as they are, 3 our opinions only. They may t be your opinions. They are ;t offered as the law and gospel i the situation, but as our own ess on some aspects of it. And < ire of course is the possibility it we may guess wrong. The > ne possibility applies to much 1 the other opinion, some of it ry positive, offered on the subIt. ; 3n the general proposition of lio competition with the newsiper, there is no question but that now exists in advertising. It jbably exists to some extent in f'Ws dissemination. In this parular I do not think the competiIn is as serious as is sometimes imed. But, at any rate, we are < a new world and a changing irld. Changes so vast that the jectives sought to describe them ve become frazzled and flabby ve occurred during the years in ich I have been coming to these and meetings. The radio is a rt of that change. The present blic mind, its interests, its habp, its "wills" and its "won'ts" are 1 o a part of it. We may sigh jnetimes for the brave days of | , but we can't have them back. 'Radio is part of the new situan. So is the telephone perfecn which enables me to take up s receiver, ask for New York or in Francisco and get the number ■post as quickly as a number in ~ own city. Retaliation Obvious needed suggestion. Keeping out of the newspaper free radio advertising; keeping out advertising names; keeping radio programs down to reasonable limit and within the news demands; refusing free publicity to promote a feature whose expenditure is confined to the radio, when the feature represents a stunt, or an advertising project rather than news — these all seem to me to be the obvious applications of good sense. As an illustration of my belief on this line let me say, before go story justified a newspaper extra, we forecast the extra in the broadcast and followed, on the broadcast, with bulletined development between the extra and the regular. Our theory has been, and our experience has seemed to be, that this in no way lessoned and it seemed to increase news-reading interest. But if it didn't, what then? In, these days the public probably is entitled to news as quickly as it can get it. Otherwise, it might be much more comfortable to cut out the extras, and let the well SUPPOSE the radio is proving a competitor of the newspaper in advertising and news dissemination. What can be done about it? This is the question asked of a press association by a man experienced in both fields, and his conclusion, so far as the press is concerned, is — nothing. Radio is here, he says, and the press will just have to get along with it. Butthjyo3£-na^^^ gests that broadcasters may see the wisdom of en-| couraging sponsors to advertise their radio features s ON'T think radio is as harmor as menacing to the newspar business as is sometimes imed — but if it were I don't ow what could be done about it. me of the retaliation suggested so obvious in its application that would scarcely seem to have Cxcerpts from a recent address before annual meeting of the Inland Daily ■ss Association, Chicago. . ing into particulars with reference to our own experience in radio operation, that our radio station buys display advertising in the newspaper at the regular rate and pays its bills once a month. I have heard, as you have, that some newspapers eliminate radio programs altogether and that they are said to be quite successful in doing it. It would seem to me to be wholly a question of what is news in that territory — what the readers feel that they have a right to expect from the paper. Our observation has been that the public relies on the papers for certain kinds and amounts of radio information— that this matter is news to the reader. Therefore we give it. The fact that we have some objection to the radio cannot, we believe, be a factor in guiding our editorial judgment as to what we shall give our readers. We do not see how we can determine our news policy by considerations of friendship or enmity for those who are concerned in the news. We do not believe our readers would permit us to do that if we were willing to do it. We question whether the radio use of a news story lessens its interest as a newspaper story. It may in some cases, with some kinds of stories. We never have hesitated to broadcast bulletins on any news storv which we thought had radio bulletin features. If the ordered regular edition tell the story. If President Hoover spoke on the radio last night, the fact that he did, and the text of what he said, probably are news today, and the news element and its obligation upon the newspaper probably are not changed by any wish we I might have that he had spurned the radio and given his talk first to the newspaper. If the radio brings us all the details of the football game on Saturday, the story probably still belongs on the sport page on Sunday morning, even though we might wish that the public interest was sympathetic enough with our desires to let us bottle the thing up, shut off from the radio, until we could print it as a news story. Like Other Innovations THIS line of reasoning could be followed to an unlimited extent, but it all bears on this point — that the radio is here, just as a thousand other innovations that have upset all the customs of a past age are here, and public progress and habit are tuned to it, and I rather think we shall have to get along with it. It seems important to remember that radio has come upon us — burst upon us seems the better expression— so rapidly that we do not know where we are going; we only know that we are on our way. The word "broadcast" was new and strange to us only a little while ago. But with the coming of this marvelous, revolutionizing discovery— this facility for picking sound out of the air — there of course came the necessity to have the sound created and sent to us. Hence, broadcasting. Broadcasting costs money. Somebody has to do it and somebody has to pay for it. There immediately arose another necessity. There had to be some regulation over it. If everybody tried to broadcast, nobody could broadcast. So the federal law was passed; the Radio Commission was created. The procedure, like radio itself, was experimental. Perhaps mistakes were made, are being made. They are a part of one of the biggest, most puzzling jobs which we as an organized society have tackled. We have had our own difficulties with the radio regulations. We have had our failures to get what we asked for. We have seen what amounts to the impossibility in our territory of getting a new channel on the air to serve a purpose and a community for which we thought the argument was most .convincing. In some of the applications of the regulations we have our sense of injustice. But we have been impressed by the great complexity of the job, the almost staggering difficulties of it in its scope, its lack of precedent and the novelty of principles involved. I could criticize sometimes, but I don't believe I could perform with perfection and universal satisfaction if I had the job to do. Only Two Choices I CAN see, off hand, but two ways to have broadcasting. To have it as a private enterprise, publicly controlled, with the broadcasters seeking their own ways of making it pay or doing it for love and glory; or have it as a government monopoly and a government function. An ideal government might give us ideal broadcasting and either put the cost into our tax bills or take it out of a license fee for our receiving sets. Unfortunately, ideal governments are scarce. As things are, I do not welcome the thought of government broadcasting or government newspaper publishing. I note some urgent recommendations that advertising be barred from the air by Congressional enactment; also high endorsement of the idea of paying for radio by a tax on radio sets. If this is a better thing than what we have, and if it is as simple as it sounds, I am for it. It seems to me, however, that the plan ought to be laid down in full. I do not see any way to levy tax and run radio than by making radio a government monopoly, or a monopolistic concession regulated by the government. This might be all right, but (Continued on pagt 32) cember 15, 1931 • BROADCASTING Page 9