U. S. Radio (Jan-Dec 1961)

EDITORIAL can public service be measured? i i RADIO'S PUBLIC INTEREST RECORD u.s. radio's second annual survey of Radio in the Public Interest (see p. 20) reveals once again the impressive role the sound medium |>la\s in serving communities across the country. Il is .1 record that delies measurement by most standards: Expansion of news activity, immediacy of information during a weather emergency, the finding of a pet, day-to-day support of community campaigns, special activities on behalf of fund drives, regular flow ol happenings in and around town, editorials and discussions intended to stimulate thinking on local — or even national — problems. How can the extent and results of these activities be ti ul\ measuredr CHANCES IN REPORTING METHODS? There is a strong industry move afoot — supported by the National Association of Broadcasters— to change the present reporting system used by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC standard requires that stations report their public interest programming activity in percentages on a "composite week" basis. The NAB has told the FCC that "submission by the broadcaster of a percentage breakdown of his programming is unrealistic and unnecessary." Under consideration by the FCC is a plan to permit broadcasters to report their public interest responsibilities in narrative or qualitative form rather than the present "numbers" system. According to u.s. radio's questionnaire survey, stations are overwhelmingly in favor of the narrative form on the grounds that it is a more effective way of repotting public service. Here's a typical station comment: "Numbers are only half a story. In public service, how do numbers explain an appeal for a needy family burned out of its home or the hospital asking for a spec ial type of blood. We say that we programmed 150 hours of public service in 1960, but that doesn't tell you that approximately 100 hours of that time was station-produced programs dealing with local affairs, farm activities, special drives." Similar comments from stations support the proposed narrative form because it would better show the effort involved as well as the effectiveness ol various public interest undertakings. One broadcaster sums it up this way: The percentage report does not "give consideration to the cost of research, writing, production and talent in producing programs in various categories, nor to the true type of some public service programs." And a station that relies on public service announcements rather than programs says, "We are in favor of the qualitative form because one I -minute locally-produced public service spot may take hours of time for planning and recording." MERIT OF THE PLAN The merit of the plan itself is not questioned by its critics. They only mention that the narrative form would involve considerably more effort to prepare. It is up to the broadcasters — and the FCC — to decide if presenting the whole picture is worth the effort. But no matter how one measures it — whether by numbers or by effort and results — the public interest record of radio is impressive. 64 U. S. RADIO • February 1961