Education by Radio (1932)

EDUCATION BY RADIO VOLUME 2. NUMBER 5. FEBRUARY 4. 1932 The Weakness of American Radio Senator Clarence C. Dill on his return from Europe last year de¬ cried the weakness of American radio in materials of an educational and informational nature. He was convinced that several European countries are far ahead of the United States in broadcasts of this type. In a recent interview the Senator re¬ lated his experiences with the Federal Radio Commission in attempting to se¬ cure higher power and better frequencies for educational radio stations. He was given to understand that educational authorities did not have the money to finance high-powered stations. This was clearly a subterfuge to cover up their activities which favor commercial broad¬ casting interests, since the Senator called attention to the fact that in his own state one of the educational institutions was prepared to build a ten kilowatt station, but was denied authorization by the Commission. The specific questions he has given the Federal Radio Commission [Dill amendment to the Couzens Senate Reso¬ lution 129. See Education by Radio, Vol. 2, No. 3, p9], if answered by impartial evidence, should clearly indicate one reason why American radio programs are weak. To quote Senator Dill’s own statement concerning the questions: I am anxious to ask the questions covered by the amendment in order that we may have the record of the Commission as to what it has done in the way of permitting educational stations to be built up in this country. Amer¬ ican radio is weakest on the educational side. The Radio Commission in interpreting the words “public interest” — and some one has called them the “magna charta” words of the radio law — has interpreted those words too narrowly by overemphasizing the part played by advertising over the radio. Judging from their grants of licenses and their refusals of licenses, the Commission seems to take the view that the “public interest” is best served when stations whose owners have large amounts of money and are able to put on popular programs are given the cream of the radio facilities. I am sure the answer to these questions will show that again and again edu¬ cational stations have asked for better wave¬ lengths, for permission to use more power, and to have time upon wavelengths that would be desirable in the states where it was asked for, and that the Commission has refused these applications. Honorable Ewin L. Davis, United States Representative from the Fifth District of Tennessee, chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries. Representative Davis is sponsoring important radio legislation. He believes the air is too clut¬ tered with advertising which the Federal Radio Commission might have cleaned up under exist¬ ing radio laws had it not “fallen down” on its job. It has given as the reason, generally, that the educational station is not prepared to give programs that the public desires, and similar reasons, when it seems to me that the Commis¬ sion should have taken into consideration the fact that there is a large percentage of the public that would welcome more education by radio. It might well do something to develop a love of educational programs. The Commis¬ sion should divide time upon cleared channels which it has created in order that more people might hear educational programs. It could do this by permitting state universities and col¬ leges and even public-school systems to use wavelengths for certain hours when they are desired, and then allow commercial stations to use the remaining time for commercial and sponsored programs. I hope that the information that will come from the Commission will be such as to make the public realize how the Commission has dis¬ criminated against educational stations and stations that are ready to put on educational programs, and that thereby we will build up a public opinion in this country that will induce the Commission to take a proper view of the words “public interest” from the standpoint of education. If we can do that, it will be far better than attempting to legislate, by pro¬ visions of a statute, the priorities of different services to be granted by the Commission. Education over the radio should be free from commercial interests. It should be in¬ dependent and free, just as our systems of public education are free and independent. A program sponsored by a commercial client cannot be classed as truly educa¬ tional. A year ago, when the Commis¬ sion attempted to compare the relative amounts of educational programs broad¬ cast by commercial and by educational stations, a serious fallacy resulted. The educators were scrupulously particular in classifying their program material, while in a great many cases, programs no responsible educator would class as educational were so classed by commer¬ cial operators. These conclusions, based as they were on such unscientific procedure, were used many times in attacking the stand¬ ing of many of the fine radio stations operated by educational institutions. In any attempt to secure facts called for in the senatorial radio investigation, scientific principles of investigation must be rigidly followed. Terms must be so accurately defined as to leave no op¬ portunity for individual opinions to bias the results. Any samplings made must follow acceptable scientific procedures. The people have a right to a fair and impartial survey of the radio situation in this country. From the dissatisfaction expressed on every hand with things as they are now, they will certainly not be content with anything that endeavors to whitewash those in whom the responsi¬ bility for the present state of affairs rests. Tf DUGATION over the radio should be free from commercial interests. It should be inde^ pendent and free, just as our systems of public education are free and independent. — Senator Clarence C. Dill. [17]