Education by Radio (1933)

community organizations and the like, which can contribute many valuable educational programs during a year’s time. However, the opportunity for finding time for such programs is very much reduced when the station is controled directly from New York. If George Washington University desires to broadcast a half-hour program on a particular night, it would be necessary for its officials to check with New York and they might then find it impossible to make a satisfactory arrange¬ ment due to the fact that some chain program for which the company was to receive money had the right-of-way. [ 5 J It will result in a tremendous decrease in the amount of purely local material broadcast and a corresponding increase in chain programs emanating largely from New York, and may even cause the station to be largely a repeater station. This can probably be demonstrated best by the figures pre¬ sented by the Federal Radio Commission in answer to the Couzens-Dill Resolution.2 We find there a comparison between the chain and purely local service given by two different types of stations: fl] those owned, controled, and/or operated by the National Broadcasting Company and [2] those affiliated with the National Broadcasting Company. The Commission found that the former class of stations devoted three times the amount of facilities to chain programs as it did to programs having peculiarly local interest [31.0 units as compared with 10.75 units], while in the case of the latter type of stations there was a fairly even division [66.51 1 units as compared with 63.68 units] . Of even more significance to this particular case is the prac¬ tise of the present red network outlet of the National Broad¬ casting Company in Washington, as shown on page 66 of the same report.2 We find there, according to the figures of the Commission, that station WRC which is owned by the National Broadcasting Company devoted more than ten times the amount of facilities to chain programs as to those of peculiarly local interest [.52 units as compared writh .05 units], 2 Federal Radio Commission. Commercial Radio Advertising. Senate Document 137, 72nd Congress, first session, p66-67. [ 6] It may serve to decrease the local popularity of WMAL. The Commission will recall what happened to WMAQ, Chicago, when it was taken over and operated by the National Broadcasting Company. The third Price-Waterhouse audit 3 | shows a consistent decrease in popularity of WMAQ as deter¬ mined by the answers given to the question, “What station do you listen to most?” The first audit, made in October 1930 when WMAQ was an independent station operated by the Chicago Daily News, revealed that 31.8 percent of the persons from Chicago returning questionnaires preferred WMAQ. The control of the station was subsequently transferred to the Na¬ tional Broadcasting Company, and by March 1932, when the third audit was made, only 19.4 percent of the individuals returning questionnaires indicated a preference for WMAQ. 1 his is a decrease of nearly two-fifths. [7] It will serve to increase the already disproportionate as¬ signment of facilities to the two large competing chain organ¬ izations. Those of us who have been observing the trend of events in radio believe that by its actions the Federal Radio Commission gives tacit approval to the establishment of two competing monopolistic organizations in the field of radio: namely, the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broad¬ casting System, which are comparable to the two compet¬ ing organizations in the telegraph field, the Western Union and the Postal Telegraph Company. It would seem that their intent was to preserve competition thru the establishment of these two nationwide companies. The principal difficulty with this comparison between radio and telegraph service is the j natural limitations of frequencies for broadcast use. Whereas the telegraph companies are common carriers and must accept all messages presented to them in proper form and can increase their facilities at will to accommodate an increase in business, the limited number of possible radio stations makes it necessary 3 Columbia Broadcasting System. The Third Study of Radio Network Popularity Based on a Nation-Wide Audit Conducted by Price, Waterhouse and Company, Public Accountants . Columbia Broadcasting System, New York, 1932, p23. 1ANGUAGE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL institution. Communication of ideas and emotions makes possible * the reciprocal influences without which collective deliberation and rational action are impossible. The most rudimentary organization of society is unthinkable without it. “Communication makes possible public opinion, which, when [scientifically] organized, is democracy.” Obviously, therefore, the vehicles of lan¬ guage and communication are the most vital nerves or mechanisms of society. Who commands this machin¬ ery, commands all. . . . Domination of public opinion is achieved by our economic overlords thru their control of the traffic in what the people see, hear, say, and think. This manipulation of the vision, hearing, voice, and expression of the people must be terminated. Orderly and progressive change will come, or disorderly change will come. It is a matter of expansive or explosive evolution, ballots or bullets, brains or bombs. Change is inevitable. . . . Yet there prevails deliberate, determined effort completely to suck into the vortex of private commercialism the radio, the press, the motion picture and talkie, the school, the drama, television, concert, phonograph, and other potent means of culture. . . . An honest study of the situation will confirm the belief, we feel positive, that only thru the complete nationalization of radio can freedom of communication be actually obtained in the field of the wireless. And nationalization must be predicated upon the assumption of ownership of machines for use, in other realms than communication. Under the present system of property and profit for power, the people face liberty in no direction. The guiding principle, nevertheless, if broadcasting is to be for the people and not the people for the broad¬ caster, must be ownership of the media — the vehicles — of communication. — From Abstract of Proceedings, Christian Social Action Movement, Stockton, California, May 9-12, 1932, p27. [34]