Report on blacklisting: II. Radio-television ([1956])

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

in any organization, and that artists resent restrictions more than other people. If that be the case, communication and clarity in the relation between policy makers and talent would be particularly urgent to keep such inevitable resentment within manageable limits. The structure of the industry, however, makes it difficult to achieve such clarity. Re- sponsibility for decisions is apparently always divided, and often lies, or is assumed to lie, outside the networks. Any piece of writing goes, as a rule, through a system of checks and controls so that the original product has often changed considerably when it goes on the air. Sponsor and advertising agency determine, or are assumed to determine, policy at least to the same extent as the network. One serial writer describes the situation in the following way: "What I dislike most is that so many people pass judgment on what I write. The writer submits a plot and writes a script. A number of people look at it from different viewpoints. The producer, the director, the actors, the network, the sponsor —this is a source of unhappiness for me because instead of getting what you feel you have created, you get a compilation." And another writer: "Everybody is so damned afraid. And there is a censorship, an actual censorship in effect. It's the ad agencies and the sponsors. It's a vicious thing, all these taboos. The American public is treated as if it had the moral sense of a child. Everything has got to be happy and sunny. The ad agency rules the field. But you can't put it all off on the agency either. Sometimes the sponsor himself puts his veto in directly." A producer complains: "There are some things that the advertiser or the ad agency requests and at times commands which do not con- form with my idea of good entertainment. I dislike all interferences on the part of the network or the sponsor." One director, perhaps with undue limitation to the entertainment industry, said: "This is the only field where the guy who pays the bill tells the expert what to do." If one recalls that many of these critics are actually not in the rela- tion of employees to the managers and policy makers of the industry — that they do not have a stable, continuing relationship with a given managerial group — the difficulty in achieving clarification or change will be seen in its proper perspective. These, then are some of the features in the employment situation of 236