Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

OPINION IS RADIO-TV A POLITICAL EUNUCH? Oregon's Gov. Robert D. Holmes, a former broadcaster, is unhappy about the way radio and tv stations are accepting their responsibility as news media. Gov. Holmes voiced his views, based on a decade-and-a-half in radio as general manager of KAST Astoria, Ore., and his experience in public life, at the Monday luncheon of NARTB Region 8 meeting at Portland, Ore. (see Trade Assns.). Here is a condensed version of the talk by the governor-broadcaster: I consider myself a fellow broadcaster, even though I am at present carrying out an assignment away from the broadcasting area. When it is completed I hope to return again to the field of broadcasting. My 15 years in radio, all in the small market field, were very pleasant ones. During eight of those years, I served my district in the Oregon State Senate. Today I'd like to share with you my appraisal of some of the public responsibilities of radio and television broadcasters in the light of my experience in radio and as a public official. The time is long overdue for broadcasters to face-up to the fact that we do not, cannot and I think should not seek to operate in a political vacuum. Broadcasters exerted mighty unified efforts several years ago for the right to editorialize. The Mayflower decision was hailed publicly in speeches as broadcasting's Magna Carta. And yet today only a small percentage of broadcasters in radio or television are facing up to this responsibility. Legislative committees of the Oregon Assn. of Broadcasters have indicated that state legislators treated radio and television as poor relations to be entertained in the kitchen, while newspapers were important guests. And I agree. What can be expected? Newspapers have historically editorialized on issues, local, state and national— on candidates, local, state and national. Broadcasters, in the main, have chosen to hide behind the snug safety of: "The following does not necessarily represent the views of this station." They have become pious and self-satisfied with such an attitude. YOU BREED CONTEMPT Political eunuchs are scorned — scorned by legislators at the local, state and national level, scorned by your listeners and viewers. People love politics. They have a feeling for what the word really means. Politics — the science of government — is the method by which we govern ourselves. Listeners and viewers want to know and have a right to know where a station stands. How can they know when in reality the station doesn't stand? All of us have watched stations outdo one another in the past few years trying to develop what we might call a personality. We have stations that sing . . . stations that swing . . . stations with a happy sound . . . stations that are hot spots on the dial, top spots on the dial . . . sports spots on the dial . . . stations where you're only 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes away from news. Such attempts to develop individuality for a radio or television station are little short of insulting to intelligent listeners and viewers. I think they would be far more responsive to a station that told them how it feels about power — or the satellite program— or the suggested city manager system for Portland, or about the governor's call of a special session. To achieve great stature with its listeners and viewers, broadcasting must itself first achieve such stature. Station ownership and management must face this challenge and let listeners and viewers know what the station stands for. Relegating such responsibility to panel discussions, and to commentators will not, I think, ever do the job that the people want and have a right to expect. And to the degree that broadcasting answers this challenge will it prove that it cares just as much about public responsibility as it does about profit. COMPLACENCY IS DANGEROUS Some of us who have seen the dramatic development of both radio and television in less than three decades, have become settled in the mood of "why change" — smug and complacent in financial success. What we need is what the teenager calls go-go-go. Radio had a great opportunity to rise to new heights when television forced a change in established pattern. And just about the only thing it has come up with is the music, news and sports routine. My heart bleeds, not in criticism of the announcer who is doing his level best to read in an intelligible, pleasant fashion, but in criticism of the management of that station. News and news reporting is a profession and a highly skilled one. Either through education or on-the-job training, people learn this complicated business of what is news, how it should be presented and what is most important. Radio or television cannot circumvent good reporting by simply subscribing to another wire service and then letting a good or sometimes not-so-good announcer read whatever strikes his fancy. Television had a golden opportunity to take advantage of the mistakes of radio and do a real job in the field of news dissemination. Unfortunately, and again with major exceptions, the television industry entirely missed the boat and simply compounded radio's mistakes by letting the public watch a good announcer, perhaps, read news that means absolutely nothing to him. All of us know that newspapers cannot compete with radio and television in news coverage because of the greater flexibility of radio and television. But we fail when we refuse to view news and its reporting as a highly specialized profession. Radio and television must hire top reporters, editors and writers and begin to do a real job in the news department, putting public responsibility ahead of profit. If the format of music, news and sports is to mean anything, broadcasting must stop relying solely on the top 20, 30 or 50 popular tunes as measured by juke boxes, music sales and the other means of measurement they are now following. Let's exert some musical leadership from our position as the greatest avenue of music that our world has ever known so that our listeners have the opportunity to hear everything from Bach to boogie woogie. Let's staff our broadcasting stations with musical directors who are musicians with an understanding and background in all types of music. With all of the shortcomings, I think that our American free broadcasting system stands like a beacon for the rest of the world. State systems, where the state controls, have been proven the enemies of a free people. They have failed not only in their eventual use by tyrants, but by any yardstick of quality of news and entertainment. Our American system of free broadcasting brings hope, information, inspiration and entertainment daily to millions of people, not only in this country, but all over the world. It is perhaps the most potent force in the world today. SECONDARY MARKETS ARE IMPORTANT, TOO! Sydney E. Byrnes, president-general manager of WADS Ansonia, Conn., feels that the national advertiser on occasion concentrates too much on buying major market stations. It dilutes effectiveness, he charges, and offers these reasons why: The praises of radio are sung so much these days that I am prompted to ask the experts: "When do you believe the secondary markets will become primary markets to the national advertising agencies?" Let me follow that one up with "Why do the advertising agencies buy three radio stations in one city, and skip over 40 or 50 miles to the next major market stations and do the same thing?" Does the advertiser know that much money is going down the drain? Much of this money is being poured into areas time and time again with no thought of how much more could be obtained with less money. Take the case of a 50 kw station which claims a primary area radius of 75 miles. The charge for class A time is $55 for Page 138 • October 21, 1957 Broadcasting