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.
formulated, appears to carry weight in the industry. The assumption is made that an unquestioned reputation of a sponsor will lead the public to choose his brand rather than that of a producer about whose policies questions have been asked; furthermore, that the public actually does ask questions about employment policy, or is aware of procedures in that area. To the best of our knowledge these assumptions about the public have never been definitely proved either right or wrong. But there is some fragmentary evidence to the effect that they are ques- tionable. In those cases where networks and sponsors have chosen to ignore a threat of boycott, mentioned earlier in this report, no unfavor- able public reactions ensued. Moreover, there does not appear to be an unfavorable response to the efforts of the companies that use more lenient standards and employ persons excluded by other companies for political reasons. Suggestions for Change Those who draw from the foregoing analysis the conclusion that morale with regard to "blacklisting" in the industry should and could be better than it is will be concerned with the question of how to im- prove the situation. This question was actually the focus of interest in the discussions with top executives of the industry. On the assumption, questioned only by one of them, that the morale survey identified cor- rectly significant aspects of morale, in spite of the small number of respondents, they were asked to comment on a variety of possible procedures for improvement of the situation. Most of the procedures suggested for discussion were adaptations of plans and ideas which have been talked about in the industry for several years and had therefore had the benefit of critical evaluation by those who would have to imple- ment them. Two factors justified going over such old ground. First, while none of these plans had been adopted, the reasons for their rejec- tion were largely unknown. It was thought that an understanding of why the industry had turned down previous plans might make it pos- sible to develop new ones which avoided objectionable features. Sec- ond, there was the possibility that one of the reasons for rejecting these plans previously was not that they were unsound but that policy makers felt there was little reason for doing anything about "black- listing" in the belief that it had no appreciable consequences for the ordinary running of their organizations. Should the results of our 258