Education by Radio (1932)

evidence, the examiner states that the program material is obtained without ex¬ pense. It is difficult to conceive of a more flagrant disregard of material facts than appears in this one statement alone. It is obviously indicative of prejudice and bias and is misleading to the Commis¬ sion. [B] The examiner’s finding that “with the exception of talks by prominent men of the state, the program material is composed en¬ tirely of university talent,” is erroneous, not supported by the record, and grossly mislead¬ ing. In the first place, this finding of the exam¬ iner disregards the fact that WEAO has been broadcasting talks by prominent men outside of Ohio. The record of Mr. Higgy’s testimony Ip241] discloses a few of the nationally-known speakers who have appeared over WEAO dur¬ ing the past year, such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Arctic explorer; Glenn Frank, president, University of Wisconsin; William M. Jardine, former Secretary of Agriculture of the United States; R. W. Dunlap, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; Ernest Thompson Seton, natural¬ ist; Edgar Guest, poet; William John Cooper, United States Commissioner of Education ; F. D. Farrell, president, Kansas State College of Agriculture; and John H. Finley, of the New York Times. The program material of WEAO other than talks by prominent men of the state and nation is not composed entirely of university talent as found by the examiner. The entire city of Columbus is drawn upon for talent as well as surrounding cities [R. of Mr. Higgy’s tes¬ timony, p31], [C] The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the examiner’s report of “the facts” are mislead¬ ing to the Commission; they contain half truths, and are not substantiated by the facts. The examiner’s reference to the hours “for what are generally referred to by this station as educational programs” discloses bias and prejudice and is totally unwarranted by the record. There is no evidence to the effect that the educa¬ tional programs of the Ohio State Uni¬ versity are not in fact educational pro¬ grams. The language of the examiner by subtle inference would indicate that some question had been raised as to whether or not these programs are in fact, and have been in fact, educational. No question in this respect was raised at any place in the record and therefore the finding of the examiner is unreliable for the use of the Commission. The remaining substance of the examiner’s findings of fact set forth in the fifth and sixth paragraphs, here under consideration, is to the effect that WEAO has not used all the time which has been heretofore available to the sta¬ tion. This is but a half truth and, in the absence of any explanation or consideration as to the reasons for it not being used, is misleading to the Commission and prejudicial to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. It is submitted that the Commission should take judicial notice of the fact that the purposes of a broadcasting sta¬ tion of a great university of one of the states, devoted in a large measure to edu¬ cation, vary from the purposes of a purely commercial station devoted pri¬ marily to the purpose of profit for itself rather than for the public good. Universities are, of course, closed on Sat¬ urday afternoons. The Saturday afternoon hours heretofore available and assigned to WEAO have only been needed during the foot¬ ball season. A mere cursory examination of the hours heretofore assigned to WEAO will dis¬ close certain hours which are unsuitable for broadcasting purposes of an educational insti¬ tution, and it is with a view of making available to the people of Ohio the benefit of the serv¬ ices of the Ohio State University during the hours when those services are needed, that WEAO is now before this Commission. The examiner highlights the failure of WEAO to use all time heretofore allotted and then recom¬ mends that there shall be allotted to the uni¬ versity still more unsuitable hours, and that there be taken from the university those hours in the evening which have been entirely used and which are most suitable. In the broadcast of lecture programs when the station is compeled to cease broadcasting at a given moment, there must inevitably be a safe margin allowed in order to prevent the possibility of the use of the channel beyond the allotted time as re¬ quired by the Commission. This results occa¬ sionally in a talk being terminated five or ten minutes before the end of the hour. This con¬ dition obviously inheres where the program is a lecture of substance rather than, for instance, the continuous prattle of a comedian, or the constant jingle of a jazz band. The examiner has again highlighted the fact that a small percentage of the time has been used in broadcasting phonograph records. Again a half truth totally misleading to the Commission. The record discloses in the testi¬ mony of Mr. Higgy that of these records “98 percent, I will say, are classical selections, broadcast with announcements in connection with music appreciation” [p77 of record of Mr. Higgy’s testimony] . The mere reference in the examiner’s report to phonograph rec¬ ords tells but half of the truth, the remaining half being that these records are of a far higher caliber than usually used in broadcasts. Insofar as the report is concerned, the Commission would be led to believe that the records are made up largely of jazz bands instead of rec¬ ords of outstanding artists and symphonies, playing classical compositions. [D] The finding of the examiner that the programs of WEAO are dictated by the de¬ sires and needs of the university itself rather than the listening public is wholly false. The record discloses [testimony of Mr. Higgy, pl3] that the university has a grant of fifty thousand dollars which it is spending for the purpose of ascertaining the desires and needs of the listening public. The station con¬ ducts an annual survey of its radio audiences for the very purpose of determining the desires and needs of its listening public and frames its programs in conformity therewith. [See Mr. Higgy’s testimony, p20 and WEAO Exhibit No. 6.] This entirely erroneous statement of the examiner is apparently predicated upon the theory that the desire and need of the listen¬ ing public is for still more programs which are purely entertaining and still fewer educational programs. It is submitted that cultural and educational influences are essential to the hap¬ piness and welfare of the public, and are also entertaining. In the last analysis, even if it were true that the programs were dictated by the desires and needs of the university itself rather than of the listening public, these programs would still be dictated by the desires and needs of the listening public, because we are not here considering a privately-owned broadcasting station which is operated for profit. WEAO is the station of the public itself, supported by the taxpayers’ money, managed, controled, and operated by the representatives of the people themselves and consequently the desires and needs of the University of Ohio are the desires and needs of the people of Ohio. The examiner seems to be completely oblivious to this fact and apparently has considered the station as tho it were a private enterprise. Ohio has a representative government, and its institutions are of, by, and for its people. [E] The examiner’s findings appearing in the fourth paragraph on p3 of the report with respect to the programs of WKBN are wholly inadequate, misleading, and biased. Reference is made to the fact that there is local talent available to the ex¬ tent of seventeen hundred persons. In a city the size of Youngstown [170,002], this means that the examiner considers one out of every one hundred persons as “talent.” If in Youngstown there are seventeen hundred persons that may be classed as “talent,” the caliber of the “talent” is obvious, and needs no com¬ ment. The report with respect to station WKBN contains no percentage of time given to jazz orchestras and commercial propaganda and is therefore valueless to the Commission, being clearly preju¬ diced. In order that the Commission may fairly determine the relative merits of the programs given by the two stations, it is submitted that the Commission must have a full and unprejudiced report as to the programs of each station. Refer¬ ence is made to educational programs of WKBN. There is no mention as to the standing, or rather lack of standing, of institutions furnishing such programs. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the examiner with respect to the programs of WKBN not predicated upon the record, the matter is summarized as to that sta¬ tion that their programs are “well diver¬ sified and generally of merit,” inferring a lack of merit and diversification of the programs of station WEAO. A mere ex¬ amination of WEAO Exhibits 1 and 2 [22]