Ethic for broadcasting; Critic of the art, part 2
So there is some danger unless the educational broadcaster keeps aware and alert the changing nature of the will and the changing needs of people that he might find the commercial broadcaster doing the educational job of the antenna fold of course is the guy who regards a television and tower over a house as a kind of badge of shame which stigmatizes all who dwell between the one beneath the roof and so on and won't have one of the filthy things in his house. I this is about like saying that because of obscene books are sometimes found you're not going to have books in your house. The minute the commercial broadcaster realizes that the educational station has an audience. And that people are listening to the educational station. He immediately wakes up. To the fact that here is somebody he has not reaching educational programs should not be watched because they are just education. They should be watched because they have some interest value
in them for the audience I think that educational broadcasters make a mistake if they design a program service for those who are already engine he may have the real opportunity you would need resources and universities behind him and faculty and also I think you do an outstanding job. I think you have failed in that job by having the courage those voices belong to a state educational broadcaster. Dr. Edward Rosenheim educator Ed burrowers educational broadcaster guarded garrisoned educational broadcaster Dr. Armand Hunter educational broadcaster and Herbert Evans commercial broadcaster. This is for broadcasting a series of 13 documentary
radio programs compiled from interviews with men who make broadcasting their business. This series is produced under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters program 11. The critique of the art part to education and now here is your host John Campbell has educational broadcasting has taken on a new significance in recent years. And though not devoid of entertainment its primary purpose is to make manifest the investigation of ideas. This takes two principal forms instructional programming for credit on all levels and adult education programs designed for the general public. Both forms are to provide experiences which try to challenge the viewer by serving his educational cultural or Vocational interests. The hope is that this will alter his prejudices or perspectives in an effort to make him sensitive to his place in society. The question at this point could be does the programming offered on the present educational facilities
do this. Are the educational broadcasters doing what the commercial broadcasters cannot do or are the educators just copying their commercial brother and although educational broadcasting sometimes entertains in the sense that learning may be a delight as well as a discipline the dissemination of an idea should be uppermost in our thinking. The true entertainment and education are not dichotomous. These are some of our concerns as we turn to Dr. Edward Rosenheim associate professor of humanities at the University of Chicago and I ask but here you are a professor of literature and chairman of a humanities program and you're talking about educators broadcasting his control. You are a tastemaker in a sense the broadcasting those who control broadcasting with the broadcast licensee in the final analysis is a tastemaker of what can be done to suggest to him that maybe he might get to the to the actual taste of the actual good standard rather than the synthetic one how can one be a blip this to a standard and not just look at
TV and go to the original sources for a taste. Well I think you know I think I have. I certainly wouldn't except the latter alternative this is that this is gets you into what I call the antenna for state of mind which unfortunately is all too frequently encountered among academics the antenna fall of course is the guy who regards a television and 10 hour over a house as a kind of badge of shame which stigmatizes all who dwell between the night beneath the roof and so on and won't have one of the filthy things in his house. This is about like saying that because the obscene books are sometimes found you're not going to have books in your house. And indeed I think the answer to your question really might might once again be a pressing of the book analogy. But it is in our business. We read books and we write books. We're very much aware of the fact the vast majority of books in this country and all you have to do is look at the newsstand racks. The vast majority of books in this country are of very trivial character.
Some are worse than trivial. The majority of them are probably innocuous but pretty crummy. This doesn't inhibit us from believing that the printing press can be used for noble purpose in the absence of regularity the absence of any television and very very few radio outlets for the product of academic thought is what bothers a great many people. Well do the commercial broadcasters feel that this is the domain the responsibility of the educational broadcaster there. I suspect they do. I did during the I was involved a little bit in broadcasting during sort of the cradle period of the Educational Television movement and I was always amused a great glee and enthusiasm with which even the most hard boiled. Commercial broadcasters spoke of the advantage of educational broadcasting. I doubt I think being unduly skeptical about this enthusiasm I strongly suspect that much of its foundation was in the belief that they would through the advent of the education
broadcaster be relieved of any responsibility or burden to employ their own facilities for educational purposes. Garnett garrisoned director of broadcasting for the University of Michigan continues as he says educational programs should not be watched because they are just education. They should be watched because they have some interest value in them for the audience. I do not believe that educational broadcasters should rely upon the mantel of respectability which is inherent in the phrase educational and be content to present relatively dull. The programs saying these are educational So therefore you should watch them or listen to them. I believe as in education itself a stimulating teacher and a provocative teacher is much more effective than a teacher who capitalizes upon to an audience which is in the
classroom for an hour and drones on and on. I think that educational broadcasters should strive for inventiveness while our visual methods of reinforcement for riot of showmanship in order to gain greater interest and on the part of the audience they should not be content to. As they slogan if it's education it's good watching it should be an interesting program as well as being good education inventiveness a concept which both educational and commercial broadcasters could profit from that burrows associate director for radio and station manager WUOM at the University of Michigan. He was asked about the status of educational broadcasting. Some have suggested the fuss of the possibility exists of curing the ills in broadcasting if there are any certain commercial broadcasting that these can be cured by the education of Broadcasters the education of broadcasters will show the way. Is this necessarily so or
can they exist or co-exist peacefully. Let's put it this way to get I'm sure they can coexist peacefully but I have been under the apprehension or to some perhaps the misapprehension that the educational broadcasters have in many cases shown the way that much worse things might conceivably have happened to the radio industry in this country if it had not been for the existence of the educational radio broadcasters and. Passing this into the future it's possible that the existence of educational television stations will assist in the preservation of any sort of ideals in all television programming in this country commercial as well as educational. To be
specific. I know that in many areas including our own the existence of an educational station has had a direct effect on the programming of the commercial broadcaster. The minute the commercial broadcaster realizes that the educational station has an audience and that people are listening to the educational station he immediately wakes up to the fact that here is somebody he is not reaching. How does he reach these people by imitation. And therefore he himself dares to put on programs of classical music or of an educational nature that years before he would never have conceived of doing on his station. This certainly has raised the level in many cities in this country of the commercial programming. I have no doubt of it whatsoever.
Garnett Garrison returns to compliment the networks and points to a critical need as he says. I believe that. Did he say the networks could defend with with considerable energy and should be applauded for the many contributions that they have made. I believe really. That. Many of the programs which they have presented a serious nature. Have not had the audiences that they deserve and people generally just do not want to be educated at some of the times that the broadcasts of them been presented to them. The people well let's use it. I have I have often attacked some of the colleges of education in our need to have more consideration in colleges of education and in colleges generally on what makes Johnny listen. When we
know that the child at the present time over the course of the years spends more time in front of us television sets than he does in school. You have all of this. Exposure to broadcasting television particularly facing the child. And yet in the schools very little is taught discuss considered as to the impact of this viewing upon the child. There is little attempt to guide the child in discrimination in viewing what is a good television program. What makes this western better than this western. What makes this one this jockey better than this disc jockey. You have little attention being paid in colleges of education to the impact of broadcasting upon the people and their courses of instruction. You're having considerable attention paid to reading literature appreciation. But scarcely any attention paid to the impact of television and appreciation of television literature. I believe it is not enough to say the broadcaster
must submit this serious material without at the same time saying that there must be a conscientious effort on the part of educators to. Train to motivate to work toward appreciation of effective programming and serious programming at the elementary secondary and college level. When you think of educational broadcasting you naturally think of programming for children and its effect as it has been poured. It's not a matter of what does television do to children but rather what do the children do with television. Dr. Armand Hunter director of broadcasting for Michigan State University talks about for home educational broadcasters should design programs. I think that educational broadcasters make a mistake if they design a program service for those who are already educated. In other words if you're going to operate your educational program service for the faculty and staff of the university then you are certainly limiting or narrowing your audience
and to what I believe is in undefensible degree. On the other hand you do only this minority of your audience which represents a very high level of educational background and taste as some program service within the framework of your overall structure as a state supported tax supported educational institution. I believe that the station and the Broadcasting Services should serve as channels to carry the educational services of the entire university to the general public and by the general public. I mean all ages both sexes and every range of economic social and cultural level in this respect. We are going to serve as wide an audience as possible.
Taken in one sense but we will serve them by a specific and particular programs which will meet various levels or sections of the audience representing specific needs. Consider everyone fine but with what. Herbert Evans broadcaster an executive with a Nationwide Insurance Company and Nancy it's a scathing indictment as he talks of our subject and we discussed this like an educational broadcast. They have the real opportunity to do it with the resources of universities behind them and faculty and also I think they do an outstanding job. I think I failed in that job by having too little courage. They're more afraid of their sponsors than I am of any advertiser we have no response is usually a very nice conservative tries to use Google of all things. Want nothing to happen that's difficult. Oh of course the problem and the educational people
time people. I've never been allowed to do the job they can do. They have the money to do it. Now I know they could do it. I didn't hear individual broadcasters in many ways is much more liberal than the summer. Education is good and this is all wrong. But we've got to be honest about that. Your gators are running scared. So who is to provide the kind of programming needed. We certainly do have to be honest about these things and if anyone is to be the colleges should in fact this may be the problem. As Mr. Evans says I think you and your colleges have got a part of our problem in here at this point. Instead of educating people in what we're doing is training them on a mass basis making doctors lawyers technicians be high. That's why I bring so much in the. Smaller arts college
where a student can get an educational feeling of the beauty of the word sound and thought and then when he has got my discipline and study then go on to a larger school for graduate work or what I call training I was a Russian spy ring in the summer and I feel like this is rushers. I think it's happening in Russia or is now training people like mad but I question whether educating that is a good question for us to Wes. Ralph Steidl former executive director of the Joint Council for Educational Television States hear what he feels education of broadcasters must do or else. Well I'm reminded of a conversation with a high ranking commercial broadcaster. During which we found agreement that the programming fare of the future the standard fare must be in the world of ideas must be in serious programming. If only because this is the only inexhaustible source for television and for
radio that you must begin to program with a conscience and an awareness of the individual as someone who wants to be a little bit above where he was the day before rather than someone who has his shoes off and his feet up and wants to forget the day's problems. I don't think that is too far reaching to expect that simply because of the exhaustion of the materials of mediocrity that we may find more and more programming of this nature and then I would say here a problem and a danger for each TV. The educational broadcaster may think of himself as programming alone too in minority interest. This small group interested in the serious things and it may find a commercial broadcaster discovering that this is not just a minority this is the majority and there is some danger unless the educational broadcaster he's aware and alert
of the changing nature of the will and the changing needs of people that he might find the commercial broadcaster doing the educational job. Dr Paul B Ricard director of broadcasting for Wayne State University has asked why educational broadcasters will not programme what the commercial people cannot for one reason or another. Well then let's get back to education television. In terms of possibly showing the way why aren't they. If they should be doing this why don't they entertain the notion of putting on what the commercial broadcaster cannot for economic reasons. Well I think one thing might be said that is a problem of the FCC here which might be eliminated Incidentally they came up with another blue book or something of that sort. Just what you can do now that the Mayflower Act has been recalled is not entirely clear I have talked to many broadcasters who have been urged by their lawyers not to get into editorializing for an example because this whole thing
is still poorly defined and you might get yourself in trouble. I think there is a reticence on the part of educators. Just as there is on the part of commercial broadcasters to move into the controversial field because they are free to get in trouble they don't know just how far you can go and how far you can't go. And I think some clear definition on the part of the FCC would be very helpful here because I don't think an educator is going to move out of this area very freely when he's constantly afraid that he may be getting himself in some trouble. So I think it a very vital one that you define just what can be done and what can't be done. That education would move more directly into it. Commercial broadcasters have certain images that they must maintain or be concerned about certain corporate images the advertisers have images. Are you as the director here of one of the larger broadcasting facilities in the state educational broadcasting facilities are you concerned with some kind of a let's say university image in terms of being censored as to what should be put on. Are you concerned with reflecting the
university attitudes and philosophy here accurately rather than going off on what might be some deep end of a question. Oh yes I think this should be a university decision. I don't believe that a station manager. Can operate independent of the basic policy of the university. I have heard some broadcasters that have done this. I think it's a mistake. I believe the broadcasting activity should reflect the university and the policies that it has. I think certainly that we should exercise what ability and what intelligence we have to influence the policy development on a university campus. Along the lines we think it ought to be if we happen to disagree with it. But it seems to me as far as operating a broadcast facility for a university that's the universities be he not John campus or Paul Ricard. And when the university speaks you should not speak it seems to me in a matter that is inconsistent with the policies of the university. No I don't believe that we have the right of broadcasters to develop our own policies and our own ground rules if they are in opposition
to General university policy. This is a sort of public relations or publicity arm of the university. Well in part I think it has many other functions other than that but certainly it is in many instances the only way that the general public is informed about the university who can best define but an educator. Why do they not take the first step rather than resort to the play it safe psychology. Dr. Armand Hunter director of broadcasting for Michigan State University talks to this point when he is asked is he free to broadcast what he feels the public should be given. And yet as with any university you are free you are free to do programs representing a variety of departments covering variety of subject matter and present it in a variety of forms. However these programs must carry as you indicated. And you need that is consistent with what the public expects from higher
education. Garnett Garrison director of broadcasting for the University of Michigan here discusses a new concept and utilizing facilities for educational broadcasting when he says and I believe that this is a crucial need for us that we should buy time on the air as we buy paper as we buy typewriters as we buy material to build classrooms. We need to do a job fast and training teachers and how to be better science teachers how to be better mathematics teachers postgraduate education is of crucial importance as evidenced by many of these studies. Why not let. This time on the air be purchased by these boards of education and state boards of education and nationally through working through such associations as the Association of physicists mathematicians and so forth so that you do not have supervision of the content by the government but by the professional organizations and by representative groups of citizens
who would supervise the curriculum and have a college of the air university in the air a continental classroom in the evening in prime time. By this from the stations. By this from the network. If we were to consider the relative costs of time over how far our network is contrasted to purchase of one or two school buildings as we're not speaking in terms of a terrific amount of money we are to you and me but not in comparison to other costs stations and networks would object. Undoubtedly because the audience for programs ahead and behind such a program would be low. You would not have the big audiences so therefore it might be necessary. As with the building of highways and the building of schools to exercise the right of eminent domain and condemn if the stations would not sell the time to the. Governmental agencies involved to seize this time by exercising the right of eminent domain so that they could
be on the air would actually have the time on the networks for a presentation of scientific material improvement of mathematics being on VHF stations across the nation instead of just a few educational stations where you may not have as much audience to use all of the commands of promotional campaigns to attract as wide an audience as possible. These are pretty drastic steps but maybe that is exactly how you handle a drastic problem. The Rev. William Lynch of Georgetown University reiterates the importance of teaching a sense of criticism and that you begin with the ones to be taught. When I have begged that we do it now we insert it into our classrooms in high schools and colleges and university level and analytical study of what goes on for good or bad in these and the mass media so that we are doing what is fundamentally necessary for a solution of this problem.
Developing the critical intelligence nationally so that they can no longer say so damningly and outrageously. We are giving the people what we want. Now this once again is to become very definite to invade the classroom with the press. More of these kinds of invasions might certainly offset or hopefully ward off future invasions of some armed aggressor. The national purpose is a phrase which has been everyone's stepchild Walter Lippmann chief among others has cried out for this concern as does Ralph Steidl when he says if we could begin to think more seriously about national purpose I think then it would be easier for our mass media to do that kind of programming we talked about earlier. But there is a tendency in this baby the basic moral or immoral issue we're talking about a tendency to think in terms of the material things the refrigerator the
television set the prize. Does this I wonder affect educational television. We certainly have a major role in a major problem but this is the total dry of educational television. It is working well but fully It must be concerned with the pursuit of truth pleasant or unpleasant. It must be concerned with the development programs that take the resources of educational institutions and through the skill and delivery ability of a television. Make this available to those people who have to be making daily and weekly and monthly decisions to determine how and what we shall be. The pursuit of truth. But is this what the people want. Educated or not. Well from where we sit someone has to want it and the educator has to give this concept more than lip service. Be less concerned with university images and more concerned with
the image of today's people. For if we don't it won't make much difference how and what we should be. You've been listening to the critique of the art part to education the 11th in a series of 13 programs on ethics for broadcasting a radio documentary which is investigating the current broadcasting trends compiled from interviews with men who make broadcasting their business. Your host was Dr. John campus of the Detroit Institute of Technology. Producer for the series is Dr. Marion Hoosac of Michigan State University Oakland. Ethics for broadcasting was produced under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center and is being distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the end he be the Radio Network.
- Ethic for broadcasting
- Critic of the art, part 2
- Producing Organization
- WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
- Contributing Organization
- University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
- AAPB ID
- Episode Description
- This program, the second of three parts, focuses on criticisms of television programming.
- Series Description
- This series presents interviews that center on issues in broadcasting and society.
- Broadcast Date
- Film and Television
- Media type
Host: Cambis, John
Interviewee: Rosenheim, Edward W.
Interviewee: Burrell, Kenny
Interviewee: Steetle, Ralph, W.
Interviewee: Evans, Herbert
Interviewee: Garrison, Garnet R., 1911-
Interviewee: Hunter, Armand
Producer: Cusack, Marianne
Producing Organization: WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 61-52-11 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Ethic for broadcasting; Critic of the art, part 2,” 1961-11-19, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed February 27, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rv0d0q8d.
- MLA: “Ethic for broadcasting; Critic of the art, part 2.” 1961-11-19. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. February 27, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rv0d0q8d>.
- APA: Ethic for broadcasting; Critic of the art, part 2. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rv0d0q8d