Education by Radio (1933)

tainly at many of the best hours of the day, the listener uses his radio set for entertainment for the perfectly obvious rea¬ son that no other type of program is available. Professor C. C. Cunningham of Northwestern University has well said So far as education is concerned, American radio is a university in which the curriculum is drawn up by the business office with the expert advice of the head janitor.4 * What radio must have is freedom. An educational activity cannot function properly, if at all, when subordinated to the censorship of business interests. It is all very well to magnify the dangers of beaureaucracy under a plan of government radio control. The extent of government censorship depends upon the sentiment in the country, not upon who owns the radio. We have even less freedom on the radio in the United States than exists in England. In addition to the private censorship frequently and effectively applied, our system, where “rugged individualism” is supposed to rule, is even sub¬ jected to government pressure. The President of the United States, or any other important federal official, may have the use of any broadcasting chain without cost, at any time he wants it, but as radio is now administered, no one who desires to criticize the government will be allowed time on the chains unless he holds a position which carries with it some influence over the license which the broadcasters hold. As Professor E. C. Buehler of the University of Kansas recently stated there is no absolute freedom over the air at any time, and under any leadership it will suppress as much criticism of itself as it can. For example, in the present circumstances, General Johnson has demanded as much time on the national hookups as possible. If we had absolute freedom of the air, opponents of the NRA should be allowed an equal amount of time.6 Another factor involved in changing some of the funda¬ mental features of the American radio practise is the matter of cost. It is not surprising that the selfish interests should use inflated cost figures. One representative of the “commer¬ cial crowd,” for example, estimates that to adopt a radio plan similar to that of the British would involve an initial capital cost of $278,000,000 plus an annual cost of $145,000,000 for providing three national programs to every listener in the United States. Whether or not three national programs for the United States are necessary is certainly open to debate. Moreover an American plan using the essential features of the British system should cost no more, in all probability much less, than the present wasteful haphazard practise. Accord¬ ing to the figures of the Federal Radio Commission the total physical assets of American broadcasting including technical equipment, real estate, furniture, and fixtures but excluding goodwill, total $30,578,680.31.° Gross receipts for one year of individual stations aggregated $38,461,302.41 and of chain companies, $39,296,746.36 according to the same report.7 From these amounts the entire support of the present Amer¬ ican broadcasting practise has been derived. The reason receipts are given rather than expenditures is because the report of expenditures submitted to the Federal Radio Com¬ mission shows too much trick bookkeeping. For example, after listing the usual expenditures for programs, employees, line charges, equipment, replacement, and the like, CBS lumps more than 50 percent of its annual outlay under the heading of “other expenditures” while NBC places more than 40 per¬ cent under this same classification.8 4 In a debate on the question of radio control over NBC and CBS networks, November 1, 1933. 6 NBC and CBS network debate, op. cit. 6 Federal Radio Commission. Commercial Radio Advertising. Senate Document 137. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932. p43. 7 Ibid p43-4. 8 Ibid p50. Public Versus Private Operation he rates to be charged for electric service recently an¬ nounced by the authorities for the government-owned project at Muscle Shoals illustrate in a most striking manner the very great advantages of municipal and public ownership. These rates are the lowest in the country except, of course, of some of the municipally-owned plants. The ordinary do¬ mestic user will pay only $1.50 per month, whereas under private ownership the cost is two and in some cases three times as much. The following table shows the cost of current for small users of 50 kilowatts per month, which is sufficient to supply a minimum number of electric lights, and enough additional power to operate an electric iron, a toaster, coffee percolator, and other modest uses at the Muscle Shoals rates as compared to rates under private ownership elsewhere. Cost of 50 Kilowatts Per Month — Domestic Muscle Shoals . . $1.50 St. Louis . . . . $2.05 New York City . . 4.94 Knoxville . 4.57 Chicago . . 2.95 District of Columbia . . 1.95 Atlanta . . 3.50 Alabama . . . . 2.58 Denver . . 3.60 Heretofore this current, which has cost the government plant at Muscle Shoals lj/j mill per kilowatt hour to produce, has been sold to the Alabama Power Company at 2 mills [Ys of a cent] per kilowatt hour. And the Alabama Power Company has been selling the current to the ultimate con¬ sumer at as high as 16 cents. The average domestic rate was 5.56 cents. Many municipal plants in the United States have rates almost, and in some cases, quite as low as those mentioned above for the Muscle Shoals project. For example, the Cleve | land municipal plant has been furnishing electricity at a maximum rate of 3 cents per kilowatt hour from the begin¬ ning. Virginia, Minnesota, has perhaps the lowest maximum rate of any municipal plant in the country, 2 cents. Tacoma, Washington, also has a very low domestic rate, altho somewhat higher than the Muscle Shoals rate men¬ tioned above. Los Angeles; Jamestown, New York; and Kansas City, Missouri are other municipal plants having particularly low rates. — Carl D. Thompson. “How Public Ownership Reduces Rates.” Journal of the National Edu¬ cation Association 22:213, November 1933. Denmark Satisfied with Governmental Control overnmental control over radio-broadcasting opera¬ tions in Denmark, which ranks first among nations in the number of receivingsets in proportion to population, is said to be giving complete satisfaction. Furthermore the control system is selfsupporting financially, says the Department of Commerce. Danish broadcast programs are controled by a supervisory board of fifteen members which accepts suggestions from civic organizations which have been formed for the purpose of seeking an improvement in radio programs. Receivingsets are licensed at about $1.75 a year and the broadcasting monopoly receives the entire sum. In most European countries the government levies a tax on receiv¬ ingsets. ^ There is about one receivingset for each seven persons in Denmark, while in the United States the estimate is one set for eight and a third persons. — United States News, July 15-22, 1933. [54]