Education by Radio (1932)

EDUCATION BY RADIO VOLUME 2. NUMBER 14 APRIL 7. 1932 NEXT ISSUE APRIL 21. 1932 Free Air A Strictly Imaginary Educational Broadcast James Rorty Good evening, ladies and gentle¬ men of the great radio audience: I am speaking to you tonight thru the courtesy of the Universal Food, Candy, Cigarette, and Gadget Company, makers of Cheeryoats, Wet Smack Bars, Old Mold Cigarettes, and Sweetie Wash¬ ing Machines. My subject is education by radio. I shall try to explain to you why the National Committee on Education by Radio, representing nine educational associations, including the National Edu¬ cation Association, is sponsoring the Fess Bill, which is now pending in Congress. The officials of the Planetary Broadcast¬ ing Company are opposed to the Fess Bill. Its passage would, they think, af¬ fect adversely both their own commercial interests and the interests of other com¬ panies with which they are closely af¬ filiated. They are, nevertheless, devoted to the principle of free speech, and loyal to their stewardship of the great national resource of the air. Accordingly they have offered the use of their facilities to me without charge in order that I may place before you the issues which you, representing public opinion, the ultimate authority in a free democratic country like ours, must some day decide. The Fess Bill — If you will have pa¬ tience, I shall read the Fess Bill. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that . . . not less than IS percent, reckoned with due weight to all factors determining effective service, of the radio broadcasting facilities which are or may become subject to the control of and allo¬ cation by the Federal Radio Commission, shall be reserved for educational broadcasting exclu¬ sively and allocated, when and if applications are made therefor, to educational agencies of the federal or state governments and educational institutions chartered by the United States or by the respective states or territories. Who and what are these educational broadcasting stations that are claiming 15 percent of the air? Most of you, prob¬ ably, have never heard them or even heard of them, and I don’t blame you. You see, ever since the passage of the Radio Act of 1927, and even before that, the educational broadcasting stations, operated chiefly by the state universities, have been running on flat tires. The air is free, all right, but try and get some of it. Mr. Lafount and his figures — The records of the Federal Radio Commission show that in May 1927, when the present radio law went into effect, there was a total of ninety-four educational institu¬ tions licensed to broadcast. On March 9, 1931, the number had been reduced to forty-nine. At present, out of a total of 440 units available to the United States, educational stations occupy only 23.16 units, or one-sixteenth of the available frequencies. During the same period, however, educational broadcasts, largely over commercial stations, have increased from almost nothing to almost a tenth of the total time used by all broadcasting stations now on the air. Harold A. Lafount, federal radio commissioner, is authority for these figures. Commissioner Lafount also points out that altho the forty-nine educational institutions now licensed to broadcast have been assigned a total of 3669.2 hours per week, they have actually used only 1229.28 hours, or one-third of the time which has been made available to them, and that of this time only 283.85 hours per week have been devoted to education. He further declares that the reduction in the number of educational stations since 1927 has occurred by virtue of the voluntary as¬ signment or surrender by educational sta¬ tions of their licenses, because they were unable financially to maintain them, or because they did not have sufficient pro¬ gram material to continue operation. Commissioner Lafount believes, with the majority of his colleagues on the Fed¬ eral Radio Commission, that the status of education on the air is healthy, and that the educators ought to be happy. I am here to tell you that the status of education on the air is not healthy and that the educators — their militant wing, at least — are not happy. On the contrary, they are bitter, rebellious, and deter¬ mined. Let us get back of Commissioner Lafount’s figures and see what actually has been happening. Commercial prejudice of the Ra¬ dio Commission — To begin with, the Radio Act of 1927 reserves our national quota of broadcasting channels as public property and licenses their use, subject to revocation practically at will by the Federal Radio Commission. This body has discretionary power, subject to court review, to interpret and apply the prin¬ ciple of “public interest, convenience, and necessity” which the law embodies. But as at present constituted, the members of the Federal Radio Commission are not educators. They are business men, and they regard the interests of business as paramount in our civilization. From this point of view the right and proper dispo¬ sition of every genie, such as radio, that pops out of the laboratory bottle of mod¬ ern science is to put him to work making money for whoever happens to hold the neck of the bottle. If he makes enough money for somebody, then, in some mys¬ terious way, “progress” and “civiliza¬ tion” will be served. This, I say, is the point of view of the business man, and it is the application of this point of view, more or less sympathetically aided by the Federal Radio Commission, which is re¬ sponsible for the present preposterous and imbecile condition of radio broad¬ casting in this country. Does this seem strong language? Forgive me, ladies and gentlemen of the great radio audience. Admittedly, I am neither a business man nor an inventor. From where I sit, as a simple naive professor, the radio looks to me like the most revolutionary instru¬ ment of communication ever placed in human hands; it seems to me that its free and creative use, not to make money, but to further education and culture and to inform public opinion, is perhaps the most crucial problem with which our civiliza¬ tion is confronted. But, of course, I didn’t invent the confounded gadget, and I may be wrong. Let us listen to the man who did — Dr. Lee DeForest, who, more than anv other American, has been associated with radio science from its beginning. Broadcaster’s greediness — A while back Dr. De Forest spent some time listening to what the business men have been doing to his child. Here is what he said: Why should anyone want to buy a radio, or new tubes for an old set? Nine-tenths of what one can hear is the continual drivel of secondrate jazz, sickening crooning by degenerate sax players [original or transcripted], interrupted by blatant sales talk, meaningless but maddening station announcements, impudent commands to buy or try, actually superposed over a back¬ ground of what might alone have been good music. Get out into the sticks, away from your fine symphony-orchestra pick-ups, and listen for [53]