"Radio Channels for College Stations" Education by Radio (July 30, 1931)

iated with a publishing business sup¬ ported by advertising from the radio and associated industries, let the cat out of the bag by pointing out that granting 50,000 watts power to clear-channel sta¬ tions would insure the sale of $10,000,- 000 worth of transmitting apparatus and $100,000,000 worth of receivers. His prediction may have been in line with the facts, for granting high power to a few stations forces all others to install new and more powerful equipment. It also forces listeners to purchase better and more expensive receivers if they wish to hear any except the high-power stations. This wellknown commercial game has somewhat the same effect as starting the nations of the world on a race to produce the largest and best navy. Colleges and universities will be at a disadvantage in such a game so long as they are left unprotected on channels where they may be attacked at any time by powerful commercial interests. Twelve out oT thirteen commercial stations will likely be crowded out of the air, too, and the trend is likely to be as predicted by the monopolist in the early days of broadcasting, if his policies prevail. When such facts are pointed out to members of the Federal. Radio Commis¬ sion, the majority take the attitude that the radio laws compel them to consider all stations as being on the same basis, whether they are operated for private profit Qr as public institutions. This does not agree with the point of view of the Congressmen who made the law. It relates rather to other phases of the strategy of the dominant radio group. Early in the broadcasting era cases were taken into the courts and decisions were handed down which classified broadcasting as interstate commerce on the ground that radio waves could not be stopped at state boundaries. That was satisfactory to the commercial broadcasters because one federal agency is easier to deal with than forty-eight state agencies. Sidestepping—The next step in the strategy was to avoid the responsibilities of common carriers or public utilities. Efforts to do this have been successful so far, and we h ave the anomaly of inter¬ state commerce with no common carriers to carry it, no regulation of broadcasting rates by any governmental agency, no radio highways in the broadcasting band reserved for education or other govern¬ mental functions, and no power in the hands of any governmental agency to keep even profanity, obscenity, and the advertising of quack doctors and lot¬ The one alternative suggestion emanat¬ ing from the Commission is the same urged by commercial broadcasters; namely, that commercial stations shall be required to give a certain amount of time each day to educational programs in return for privileges granted. When asked who would determine what hours should be given to education, a member of the Commission who has been most active in arguing for this arrangement said: “We ll, of course, commercial sta¬ tions would have to have the hours they could sell to advertisers.” In short, com¬ mercial broadcasters and the majority of the Commission deny the legal right of the states, responsible for public educa¬ tion, to have any control of any broad¬ casting channels, and advocate that edu¬ cation by radio be given in hours which have no value for the commercial broad¬ caster and advertiser. Such an arrangement has more disad¬ vantages than that of inconvenience and inefficiency. It wo uld make commercial stations the exclusive radio outlet not only for education but also for the ad¬ dresses of the elected representatives of the people. These stations have the right to grant or deny requests for time and, in granting them, to choose the time when they shall be broadcast. Also they have the right of censorship. By putting one speaker on at one hour and another on at a less favorable hour the owner of a station or a chain might swing public opinion during a crisis as might be de¬ sired. Also he could associate any pub¬ lic speaker with commercial advertising. A national chain associated the Lincoln Day address of the President of the United States with the advertising of a tobacco company, and, in spite of conse¬ quent protests, associated his Red Cross address three months later with the same advertising. Camouflage—In trying to maintain their hold on the public air, commercial broadcasters often try to raise a smoke screen by criticizing college stations. The Federal Radio Commission has been be¬ fogged at times by these criticisms. But why should the Commission, or a com¬ mercial broadcaster whose object in life is to build up an audience which he can sell to advertisers, have anything to say about what the state does in education except what they have a right to say as individual taxpayers? What they say is usually highly inaccurate, as is proven by their own actions. In hearings before the Federal Radio Commission, commer¬ cial broadcasters declare nobody wants to be educated by radio, and officials of the