U. S. Radio (Jan-Dec 1960)

Radio A' f « In The Public Interest THE ROAD AHEAD Mr. McGannon, president of IVatiugliouse Broadcastijig Co. and outgoing cliairinan of NAB's Tv Code Review Board, comments on tlie radio code and the tv code being put under one NAB umbrella. I was indeed impressed by a recent statement of Congressman Emanuel Celler (D-N. Y.) , which urged his colleagues in our Congress to remember the accomplishments and positive points of broadcasting when considering legislation to correct some negatives. This is a fact which I have felt has been lost many times over in the past eight to ten months, in the avalanche of press sensationalism, criticism and scrutinizing comment. During the past decade of television's rise, radio underwent a complete metamorphosis. Radio assumed the new role of a service medium. The four thousand radio stations can dra^v a great deal of satisfaction from the manner in which the news function of radio has been developed, with a phenomenal public reliance upon the medituir for this and related services. In the public affairs and public service area, a similarly strong program has been made with features, docinrientaries and series being introduced all over the country. In the field of editorialization, perhaps even greater progress has been made in radio than in television. In the present climate and in the examination of the television-radio relationship, the subject of self-regulation also comes into prominent play. Possibly because the Television Code Revie^v Board has examined with greater delineation and definition the medium of television, it ^vould seem this mediimi has outstripped radio in the matter of self-regulation. I think this is partially true, having spent several years as a member of the board and having also enjoyed the experience of operating radio stations in our company. The problem, however, is well in hand, with a committee of the National Association of Broadcasters now in the throes of writing a set of radio standards that will be of sufficient scope and dimension to fulfill the industry responsibility. I am advised that the NAB anticipates the retaining of a research service to tmdertake the latter; in so doing, I think it will begin to measure both the problem and its solution. It would seem logical and also economical in staff and finances to contribute self-regidatory efforts in a single broadcasting entity. One of the most diffictdt tasks, the problem of DONALD H. McGANNON reaching all of the progrannuing and deciding what constitutes good taste or violates standards of taste and decency, might be in part eased if the managing direction and full-time staffs functioned in both areas. Needless to say, self-regulation is as important in the field of sound as it is in television. The ability of the mediinn to forestall and avoid the impingement of further governmental regulation must be predicated upon a set of standards and the necessary enforcement machinery that ^\ill contribute meaning and vigor to this effort. If the television code is used as a model, not only Avill the restdting radio standards carry the prohibitive and negative conditions, but the radio code will have a positive tone and direction. It ^vill spell out a philosophy that goes far beyond the "don'ts" and \\ill set, if yoti will, a "quality" level of operation. The opportunities for radio in this field are as great as in television, and the variety of formats is almost unlimited. The word "service" as used in this meaning can be a very practical and fiuidamental thins:. It includes the news and the weather, of course, traffic conditions and commimity bidletin boards as well as (within our own experience at Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.) a hoard of additional "services." It would seem that greater use of creative public service programming could and shotdd be .made by means of a greater and more iniinhibited "cidtural exchange" in this area. Among the WBC stations, we have had a good degree of success, and there are similar groups of stations around the country which have displayed continuing interest in receiving such programming. This "exchange" would do much to ease the staff and budget limitations and to broaden the base of radio's public affairs programming. Over the past fe^v years, we have had occasion to spend considerable time with a very representative and quite sizable group of broadcasters at the three local public service programming conferences which WBC has sponsored in Boston, Baltimore and Palo Alto. One continuing and impressive reaction has emerged from these meetings on this subject; that is, there is no lack of creativeness or willingness or ability or performance on the part of the American broadcasters in the field of public service. • • • U. S. RADIO May 1960 57