Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1949)

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.

No replies; KGDM-TV, Stockton, Cal.; WMBR-TV and WJAX-TV, Jacksonville; WHBF-TV, Rock Island, 111. ; WTPS-TV, New Orleans; WLAV*-TV, Grand Rapids; KOVB, Tulsa; KTVU, Portland, Ore. ; WSAZ-TV, Huntington, W. Va. So far as we can learn, few if any of these have yet ordered equipment. Status indeterminate, for various reasons: WHAS-TV, Louisville, hearing on proposed ownership transfer set March 2 (Vol. 5:5) ; KTRV, Minneapolis, CP conditional on divestment of stock owned by WTCN principals in Minneapolis Tribune and StarJournal ; WUTV, Indianapolis, ordered to hearing March 21 for delays, sale to WIRE proposed (Vol. 5:3,8) ; WRTV, New Orleans, ordered to hearing March 28 for delays (Vol. 4:43); WRTB, Waltham, Mass., hearing decision awaited (Vol. 5:6); WTVN, Columbus, ordered to hearing, date not set (Vol. 5:7) ; KARO, Riverside, Cal., Channel 1 assignment no longer available (see p. 31, TV Directory No. 6). TELEVISION KEEPS PEOPLE HONE, BUT-: "We took them out of the home. Now television is bringing them back in. " There you have TV's impact upon American habit stated pointedly and succinctly — by Henry Ford II in casual conversation the other day with Washington newspaper-radio correspondent Blair Moody (Detroit News). • Young Mr. Ford wasn't viewing with alarm — knows everything new finds its proper niche, so isn't concerned lest fewer automobiles are used — and few will gainsay his historical position to make this observation. But the quarreling starts when the pundits ponder what happens after people get home, in front of their sets. Alarm over TV's impact on American culture hasn't reached violent peak that radio had to weather in its inceptive stages, but it's almost axiomatic that it will. Note headline: "Niebuhr Assails 'Vulgarization' of U.S. by Video" over story quoting eminent theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr to effect that boxing typifies TV subject matter. He's concerned over installation of sets "at rate of a thousand a week." Perhaps he shouldn't be told it's nearer 30,000. J. Raymond Tiffany, counsel to Book Manufacturers Institute, recounts losing "struggle" with set in his home (struggle for attention), expresses fear TV will seriously cut into reading habits, but concedes TV "can make a great contribution" if telecasters realize responsibilities. Mr. Tiffany might read comment of authorcritic Joseph Wood Krutch in Feb. 26 Nation: "In the long run, surely, the only hope must lie, not in publishing books which can compete with television, but in publishing books which television cannot compete with... If [publishers] want the television audience, they would be much better advised to go into the television business themselves, for they certainly cannot beat it on its own ground." There are many more worriers, including many a parent. Sanest critical approach we've seen recently was by radio editor Jack Gould in Jan. 30 New York Times: "As a medium growing at a dizzy pace, with many wholly unique problems to solve, television is entitled to considerable leniency. .. Its inevitable indiscretions should not be exaggerated because the industry's over-all record certainly has been a fine one." Gould warns against suggestive or unpleasant lapses, notes that "children's audience for video reaches a far lower age level than it does for radio" and that tots of 3, 4 and 5 can very easily be frightened. An exacting critic of radio, Gould concludes that it's all up to the conscience of the telecaster: "The record of the radio industry in attempting to re duce matters of taste and judgment to a piece of paper in the form of a 'code' is too fresh and desultory to warrant a similar waste of time in television, which is moving so much faster." Anyway, TV is making good conversation even if it's often charged with killing the art of conversation in the home — and it's quite happy to be talked about, is even lending its facilities for occasional discussions of TV itself. As for its disruptive effect on children's habits, director James Hanrahan of Cleveland's WEWS made this pertinent reply to plaint of Mrs. Leonard Lyons, wife of the Broadway columnist and mother of four youngsters: "...we respectfully suggest that the broadcaster can't be asked to provide a substitute for home discipline. If it's time for the kids to do their homework, they should be told to do their homework, period."