Program #25: Editorializing

[00:05 - 00:10]
The following program was produced and recorded by the University of Michigan broadcasting service under a
[00:10 - 00:15]
grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center and distributed by the National Association of
[00:15 - 00:20]
educational broadcasters news in 20th century America.
[00:20 - 00:25]
A series of radio documents on the gathering writing and dissemination of news compiled
[00:25 - 00:29]
from interviews with the men and women who make news their business.
[00:29 - 00:33]
And it has the question of editorializing as stations
[00:33 - 00:37]
they simply are not interested.
[00:37 - 00:42]
Most of these stations were founded by businessman for the purposes of making all the profit possible which is
[00:42 - 00:47]
quite natural. They don't want to offend anybody because everybody's a potential
[00:47 - 00:52]
customer. They're perfectly free to go to have it go ahead and editorialize. Why
[00:52 - 00:57]
don't they. I don't do it because I don't want to do it. Afraid of trouble.
[00:57 - 01:01]
The voice is that of Eric Sevareid veteran newscaster for the Columbia
[01:01 - 01:06]
Broadcasting System One of the people you will hear today discussing
[01:06 - 01:12]
editorializing this week's edition of news in 20th century America.
[01:12 - 01:15]
Now here is your host Ed Burroughs.
[01:15 - 01:20]
On our last program we talked with a number of leading news man about the problem of objective
[01:20 - 01:24]
reporting. Kenneth MacDonald executive editor of The Des Moines Register Tribune
[01:24 - 01:29]
spoke for many of his colleagues when he said that reporting the news also means
[01:29 - 01:34]
interpreting the news and that at the heart of the problem of objectivity was the
[01:34 - 01:39]
desire the skill and the integrity on the part of journalists to interpret without
[01:39 - 01:43]
editorializing. Today we pose the question what is
[01:43 - 01:48]
editorializing. Does it have a legitimate role to play in the mass media. How does
[01:48 - 01:53]
it operate. We spoke first with a man who has long been an acute observer in the
[01:53 - 01:58]
field of mass communications Charles author of the book radio television and
[01:58 - 02:02]
society and chairman of the Department of Communications and education at New York
[02:02 - 02:07]
University. We are supposed to seep in to distinguish between editorializing
[02:07 - 02:10]
and slanting the news.
[02:10 - 02:13]
Well slanting the news is the manipulation of fact
[02:13 - 02:20]
editorializing. It is going to be on the news and expressing opinions about
[02:20 - 02:25]
what the facts mean. Now a news reporter concerned that it was by selection
[02:25 - 02:29]
by emphasis by order. Giving priority of order to things that he wants to
[02:29 - 02:34]
bring to attention to people by length giving much time to subjects
[02:34 - 02:40]
that he wants to stress little time to subjects he wants to skirt or say nothing about.
[02:40 - 02:44]
These are manipulative devices by which I knew was kind of stuck and not use. But
[02:44 - 02:49]
commentator as a person who as it were rides about the storm of events and imposes
[02:49 - 02:54]
his opinion names on the list about them and
[02:54 - 02:59]
I am for the commentator but I'm for a rounded stable of commentators
[02:59 - 03:00]
and I don't think we've got that.
[03:00 - 03:07]
If editorializing means going beyond the new and expressing opinions about what
[03:07 - 03:12]
the facts mean Dr. Slepian has just suggested. How could a journalist draw
[03:12 - 03:17]
the line between a personal opinion that is an editorial opinion and news
[03:17 - 03:22]
analysis. CBS newscaster Howard K. Smith had this to say.
[03:22 - 03:27]
I think the main thing to be said the main prefatory remark to be made is that there is no clear
[03:27 - 03:32]
cut line between these two. I think this might come as a surprise to some of my own
[03:32 - 03:37]
editors. I think they have a faith in the distinction
[03:37 - 03:41]
between editorializing and analyzing. I don't think there is a clear cut line. I think you can
[03:41 - 03:46]
state definitions for both of them but the definitions don't hold up in all
[03:46 - 03:51]
cases. In many cases they don't hold up. Editorializing is the statement of an
[03:51 - 03:56]
opinion. Analysis is an attempt to find out why and
[03:56 - 04:01]
what is behind this. Without giving opinions. But those two
[04:01 - 04:03]
definitions are not mutually exclusive.
[04:03 - 04:10]
For example you might say in regard to the State
[04:10 - 04:15]
Department's Middle East policy our policy has.
[04:15 - 04:20]
No real application to the realities of the Middle East. Now that statement
[04:20 - 04:24]
sounds like an opinion. As a matter of fact I think that I could back that question
[04:24 - 04:29]
statement up with documents and facts and pretty well prove it was an analytical statement.
[04:29 - 04:34]
It's extremely hard to draw the line. I think the drug line can only be drawn in fairly
[04:34 - 04:39]
crude cases. My own opinion is just inflammatory and emotional.
[04:39 - 04:43]
Contrast it with a sober statement of some facts that explain the
[04:43 - 04:48]
meaning of and even then would it be accurate to say that any statement of
[04:48 - 04:52]
personal opinion in the newspapers or on the air should be classified as
[04:52 - 04:54]
editorializing.
[04:54 - 04:59]
We spoke with JOHN HAIG head of station WTOP in Washington D.C. the
[04:59 - 05:04]
broadcast division of the Washington Post and Times-Herald If
[05:04 - 05:09]
you're just sit down one day and try to spell out all the subjects which are editorialized
[05:09 - 05:13]
about in newspapers you soon realize how few really
[05:13 - 05:18]
controversial. There are editorials on springtime and the blossoms are
[05:18 - 05:23]
in the air and the trees are green and this just can't be controversial yet it's called an
[05:23 - 05:28]
editorial. A distinguished statesman dies and many newspapers
[05:28 - 05:32]
have what are called editorials about this a statesman. And you
[05:32 - 05:37]
will read about his accomplishments and all the things that resulted
[05:37 - 05:42]
from his efforts. And this really is an obituary and yet that's called an
[05:42 - 05:48]
editorial. Now obviously neither of those can be called controversial.
[05:48 - 05:53]
And yet when we talk about editorials I think we subconsciously try to include in that term
[05:53 - 05:58]
all the subjects which are written about so I think the first thing a station must do is is true in its own mind to
[05:58 - 06:03]
find precisely what is an editorial. And it seems to me that an editorial
[06:03 - 06:08]
is a statement. Of opinion or a call to action.
[06:08 - 06:13]
Which is based. On a recommended course of action chosen
[06:13 - 06:18]
by the management of a station. So that I think when you talk about how editorial should be
[06:18 - 06:22]
handled on the air you're really talking about that last small part of what are normally
[06:22 - 06:25]
called editorials or newspapers.
[06:25 - 06:30]
But isn't it possible to disguise an editorial opinion so that the reader or listener
[06:30 - 06:35]
gets the impression that he is being given a piece of information accurate and objective.
[06:35 - 06:41]
We wondered how journalists would react to this problem of editorializing in the news columns.
[06:41 - 06:46]
Publisher Mark Etheridge of the Louisville Courier-Journal replied I think the
[06:46 - 06:48]
newspaper the press generally.
[06:48 - 06:55]
Falls into the heavy snow using its news columns
[06:55 - 07:00]
to express its editorial prejudices or predilections
[07:00 - 07:07]
it is doing what the totalitarian priced zone nor are
[07:07 - 07:12]
they doing it voluntarily here.
[07:12 - 07:18]
They have to do it in Yugoslavia Poland Russia and so forth.
[07:18 - 07:21]
I think they're falling into a
[07:21 - 07:27]
ideological battle rather than exercising the
[07:27 - 07:30]
full freedom of the press as guaranteed in the Constitution.
[07:30 - 07:34]
Yeah that it would appear that an editorial should be
[07:34 - 07:37]
identified or labeled in some way.
[07:37 - 07:42]
NBC newsman David Brinkley spoke on that subject. Well if it is
[07:42 - 07:45]
strictly an editorial.
[07:45 - 07:49]
On a controversial or political
[07:49 - 07:55]
partisan issue in which the person
[07:55 - 07:59]
on air takes sides then I would think it should be an editorial.
[07:59 - 08:04]
That should be labeled an editorial. But if it is an expression of
[08:04 - 08:07]
an individual's views on.
[08:07 - 08:16]
An abstruse or complex subject or problem.
[08:16 - 08:21]
I don't see any reason why he shouldn't say this is what this is the problem and it
[08:21 - 08:27]
seems to me or I think this is something that might be done about it.
[08:27 - 08:31]
I suppose in a technical sense that is an editorial editorial
[08:31 - 08:36]
writing has existed for many years in newspapers but editorializing on
[08:36 - 08:41]
radio and television is a relatively new phenomenon. How do the broadcasters
[08:41 - 08:46]
themselves feel about the use of opinion on the airwaves and
[08:46 - 08:50]
vice president in charge of news for CBS addressed himself to this question from
[08:50 - 08:55]
resupplying editorializing we believe that broadcasters.
[08:55 - 09:00]
I say very generally should editorialize they should make you so they became your
[09:00 - 09:04]
qualities the characteristics of the broadcast media for carrying points of
[09:04 - 09:09]
view but we think that there are certain restrictions which should be self-imposed in the
[09:09 - 09:14]
first place we do not believe that editorializing should be done without the most thorough
[09:14 - 09:19]
research done by the most competent and trained researchers I'm using research now
[09:19 - 09:24]
in terms of good solid reporting but I mean reporting which extends beyond interviewing on a
[09:24 - 09:29]
face to face basis that's library reporting it's carry on legal reporting
[09:29 - 09:33]
it's all around research job. We think that
[09:33 - 09:39]
editorializing should not be done unless the person is competent to analyze the
[09:39 - 09:44]
results of reporting so that the decisions which are taken that positions which are
[09:44 - 09:48]
to be taken by management. I take it in such fashion that there is some assurance that there are reasonable
[09:48 - 09:53]
decisions based on honest analysis of the facts. We
[09:53 - 09:58]
believe that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the opinion of
[09:58 - 10:03]
the management and not of any single broadcaster within the organisation
[10:03 - 10:08]
since its a management point of view since its the station or the network which might stand behind a point of view.
[10:08 - 10:13]
We also believe due to the peculiarities of the licensing system under which broadcasters operate
[10:13 - 10:18]
that adequate provision must be made for time to answer on the part of
[10:18 - 10:23]
opposition point of view. One opposition point of view there are several shades of opposition
[10:23 - 10:27]
points of view several shades. We think that of all of these
[10:27 - 10:34]
cautions are mad that the broadcaster should go ahead and editorialize he should take a
[10:34 - 10:39]
stand on issues of importance in his community has to make some statement
[10:39 - 10:43]
that the expression of opinion should be the expression of the management's point of view
[10:43 - 10:46]
was not shared by all of his colleagues.
[10:46 - 10:51]
Veteran newscaster HP called aboard spoke for the opposing camp.
[10:51 - 10:56]
I think it would be a mistake if management relied entirely on the present tension of its
[10:56 - 11:00]
own point of view. I think they should select competent editors to do
[11:00 - 11:05]
it. Now and I would quite agree that the editors need not all see
[11:05 - 11:10]
eye to eye. I think that on different evenings they could use different editorial
[11:10 - 11:14]
personalities to excellent effect and perhaps give a little different
[11:14 - 11:19]
emphasis to certain aspects of the news and in any case a station
[11:19 - 11:24]
must reconcile itself to work ational way providing
[11:24 - 11:28]
time for some individual who feels that he
[11:28 - 11:33]
has been wronged in the material in an editorial that he has a
[11:33 - 11:38]
chance to state his point of view in opposition. That must be part of the editorial
[11:38 - 11:43]
policy and that only adds interest. It suggests that the
[11:43 - 11:47]
station is fair minded and perhaps in accomplishing its purpose
[11:47 - 11:52]
it works more effectively than it would if it didn't have that kind of an
[11:52 - 11:53]
occasional answer.
[11:53 - 12:00]
Another condition specified by Mr. Mickelson of CBS was that adequate provision
[12:00 - 12:05]
must be made for time to answer on the part of the opposition point of view.
[12:05 - 12:09]
This so-called Equal time concept is one which is concerned broadcasters for some
[12:09 - 12:14]
time for a statement of the background on this controversial topic. We turn
[12:14 - 12:16]
again to Charles Mann.
[12:16 - 12:21]
Well I testified at the hearings on the Mayflower decision. Years back before
[12:21 - 12:26]
the FCC. As one who was against conceding to broadcasters the
[12:26 - 12:30]
right to editorialize. Basically on the score that
[12:30 - 12:35]
I didn't believe that a person who was privileged to receive a license
[12:35 - 12:40]
should have opportunity through that privilege. Of having an
[12:40 - 12:45]
advent dangerous position to reach the public with his particular point of view. His ownership of a station
[12:45 - 12:50]
seemed to be quite immaterial and the exercise of power on such a scale
[12:50 - 12:54]
I didn't think seemed to me consonant with the proper duties of a licensee.
[12:54 - 12:58]
I'm.
[12:58 - 13:03]
Not quite sure that I would hold so arbitrarily with that view
[13:03 - 13:08]
today that I would hold with the FCC and its revised Mayflower
[13:08 - 13:13]
hearings decision that if there is editorial opinion expressed by a
[13:13 - 13:17]
station group must be found for a contrary view to be
[13:17 - 13:21]
expressed here in this city station WMC
[13:21 - 13:27]
regularly has editorials by the owner of the stations donate and struck us. And
[13:27 - 13:32]
I don't know that he strictly within the letter of the law in his
[13:32 - 13:37]
policy of conceding time to anybody who claims to answer him. I think the
[13:37 - 13:42]
actually the FCC meant that we had an editorial B was expressed there must
[13:42 - 13:47]
be some other point of view expressed also. This destroys the station
[13:47 - 13:52]
he gives his editorial office. And then if anybody cares to take up the cudgels
[13:52 - 13:58]
he will concede time well with a man of that.
[13:58 - 14:02]
Integrity I have no fear for the use of the editorial but I
[14:02 - 14:07]
would still think that the FCC provision is a sound one that we must never let a licensee
[14:07 - 14:12]
get away with the opportunity to reach the public with his own point of view.
[14:12 - 14:17]
Without full opportunity for other views being expressed as well. Otherwise this is an abuse of power.
[14:17 - 14:19]
But I would certainly be against.
[14:19 - 14:24]
Equal time on the air for the opposition point of view is at present insisted upon by the
[14:24 - 14:29]
FCC but the situation in the newspapers is quite different.
[14:29 - 14:34]
Author and critic Gilbert Saudi's is the director of the newly formed Annenberg School of Communications
[14:34 - 14:39]
at the University of Pennsylvania. But the Saudis added fuel to the fire on the subject of
[14:39 - 14:45]
equal time as he discussed the Mayflower decision and its effects on the mass media.
[14:45 - 14:49]
It's interesting to note that everybody as far as I know with two exceptions want
[14:49 - 14:54]
to reverse the broadcast was reversed so on the American Civil Liberties Union and best of
[14:54 - 15:01]
my recollection did not want to be versed and a great many. Maybe you just don't want it reversed.
[15:01 - 15:05]
Ever unions not have broadcasters who are identified as being
[15:05 - 15:10]
sponsored by them. But now days a station can go on the
[15:10 - 15:15]
air and say Write to your congressman to do this do that.
[15:15 - 15:20]
Station does that it's got to give equal time to reply can you imagine a Chicago
[15:20 - 15:25]
Tribune The New York Times Herald Tribune or any paper you mean you want to name.
[15:25 - 15:31]
Opening its editorial columns for it with exact equality.
[15:31 - 15:36]
Every time they publish an editorial in favor of something publishing a toile against it.
[15:36 - 15:40]
I don't think that can be done and I don't know what the situation what can be done in a
[15:40 - 15:45]
situation broadcasting that is not good. The fact that they have to give time
[15:45 - 15:50]
replied intimidates broadcasters from saying what they want to say.
[15:50 - 15:55]
We spoke also with newspaper men on this subject among them Robert Barton editor of the Lima
[15:55 - 16:00]
citizen in Lima Ohio. We asked him should radio and television have the same
[16:00 - 16:05]
rights as newspapers in the presentation of editorial opinion or is it entirely
[16:05 - 16:09]
proper to give equal time to an opposing viewpoint.
[16:09 - 16:14]
No I think that's entirely silly. I think radio and television have has as
[16:14 - 16:19]
much right to operate their businesses as they see fit as a
[16:19 - 16:19]
newspaper.
[16:19 - 16:26]
Newspapers. Started off by making a lot of mistakes.
[16:26 - 16:31]
It's taken them years to grow up. And I think perhaps radio
[16:31 - 16:35]
on television would. Would make a lot of mistakes they could
[16:35 - 16:40]
conceivably make fatal mistakes. You know some of the raps were taken off the
[16:40 - 16:45]
restrictions were removed. But. Were
[16:45 - 16:51]
a free country we believe in in free speech. If they are.
[16:51 - 16:57]
If the powers that be behind radio and television are willing to take that gamble.
[16:57 - 17:02]
And take a chance on on creating. Enough antagonism
[17:02 - 17:07]
that it might. Hurt them or destroy them. I think they should have that privilege.
[17:07 - 17:12]
I think that there are enough other news media in the country.
[17:12 - 17:17]
You're a news magazines you're. Your magazines such as
[17:17 - 17:21]
Saturday Evening Post and your daily new weekly newspapers.
[17:21 - 17:29]
Radio and Television could be held in line by public opinion without
[17:29 - 17:33]
governmental. Control.
[17:33 - 17:37]
A call for more freedom for the airways to allow editorializing on radio and
[17:37 - 17:42]
television to operate in much the same manner as in the newspaper world.
[17:42 - 17:47]
We asked ABC reporter Mike Wallace whether he agreed that the core of the problem of
[17:47 - 17:52]
editorializing was indeed insufficient freedom for broadcasters.
[17:52 - 17:54]
I think.
[17:54 - 17:59]
Time and again it's been brought out that the freedom is there that it's simply a question of
[17:59 - 18:03]
not using the freedom. Actually over the past
[18:03 - 18:08]
year the networks. Have begun to exercise
[18:08 - 18:13]
a little of the freedom that is there is to use when they want to for the first time on
[18:13 - 18:18]
radio. They have used a good deal of their freedom but your hard point on your television is going to
[18:18 - 18:23]
Jewel's to find any sensible commentary. I guess NBC now has a little bit
[18:23 - 18:28]
more. And I think they were ahead of CBS on on this
[18:28 - 18:32]
score and as far as I know there's virtually none at all. And in the way of
[18:32 - 18:37]
controversial discussion on ABC or editorial discussion
[18:37 - 18:43]
on ABC that is not true on any of the Radio Networks. Now whether this is just a
[18:43 - 18:47]
question of time and availability of time for discussions of this kind on the
[18:47 - 18:53]
air I I don't know but there is insufficient editorial discussion on a daily basis.
[18:53 - 18:57]
There isn't a newspaper in the world practically doesn't have an editorial page every
[18:57 - 19:03]
single issue. Why should there not be an editorial page certainly once a day.
[19:03 - 19:06]
On every major news program.
[19:06 - 19:10]
That was Mike Wallace suggesting that editorializing was not only necessary on the air
[19:10 - 19:15]
but that it should become a daily habit. In speaking with journalists about this
[19:15 - 19:20]
subject of editorializing we found a number of differing opinions when we asked whether there was
[19:20 - 19:24]
enough editorial comment on the air today. HP cotton board
[19:24 - 19:29]
agreed that there now exists a certain amount of editorializing on the air.
[19:29 - 19:33]
He then went on to say well yes but we don't have enough and we don't have enough
[19:33 - 19:38]
editorializing that at MIT's that it is editorializing That's because
[19:38 - 19:43]
most radio station owners are timid. They want to make money. That's their
[19:43 - 19:47]
chief interest every now and then you find a local station that has a real
[19:47 - 19:53]
sense for public service and where moneymaking is not the prime objective just as you
[19:53 - 19:58]
find newspaper owners whose prime purpose is to serve the community in which
[19:58 - 20:02]
they work and not to make money but generally by and large
[20:02 - 20:07]
moneymaking is the purpose. And whatever they think makes money they do
[20:07 - 20:12]
what they think might prevent them from getting certain advertising. What might
[20:12 - 20:17]
offend some of their readers and thereby cause a flow in
[20:17 - 20:19]
circulation.
[20:19 - 20:23]
They followed the matter when in doubt don't. And
[20:23 - 20:28]
consequently there is very little real editorial
[20:28 - 20:32]
comment either on the radio or on
[20:32 - 20:33]
television.
[20:33 - 20:39]
But the Colton boy has pointed to the desire to make money as the key reason why there was not
[20:39 - 20:44]
more editorializing on the air. He told us that the question of equal time was
[20:44 - 20:48]
being used as a convenient excuse to avoid meeting the responsibility of presenting
[20:48 - 20:53]
editorial opinions. But we wondered are there any encouraging trends that
[20:53 - 20:55]
he could describe for us.
[20:55 - 21:00]
Yes we've just had a report and I say
[21:00 - 21:05]
we've had I was I have a
[21:05 - 21:09]
small foundation Guttenberg Foundation which
[21:09 - 21:14]
helps young chaps who are working in radio or in
[21:14 - 21:18]
television helps them to get a start. Helps them to do the particular thing they want to do
[21:18 - 21:23]
helps them to do an occasional piece of research. And I've just subsidized a chap
[21:23 - 21:28]
named out smiter Snyder down in Miami Florida
[21:28 - 21:33]
who with the help of the radio and television department of the University of
[21:33 - 21:37]
Miami made. An extensive investigation
[21:37 - 21:42]
as to the effect of a policy of radio editorials
[21:42 - 21:48]
that one of the leading stations of Miami has decided to follow during the year and a half.
[21:48 - 21:52]
They've had a young fellow who has voiced a daily editorial. And
[21:52 - 21:57]
one of the purposes about Snyders investigation in which he used a great
[21:57 - 22:02]
many students who were studying radio and television at Miami University. Competent
[22:02 - 22:07]
young people who knew how to put questions and whose questions were carefully phrased.
[22:07 - 22:13]
They went out and learned that this editorial.
[22:13 - 22:17]
Done by a young editor on the staff of station
[22:17 - 22:22]
WTMJ that that was the most
[22:22 - 22:28]
popular single news feature voiced in Greater Miami.
[22:28 - 22:32]
It has twice the following the 6:30 news broadcast which includes at the
[22:32 - 22:37]
end before a five minute editorial by this fellow Ralph
[22:37 - 22:42]
Rennick who has done it extremely well and that has built up a tremendous
[22:42 - 22:47]
following for that particular newscast because people like it they
[22:47 - 22:51]
believe in it and they it's very popular
[22:51 - 22:54]
and it gets popular more popular all the time.
[22:54 - 23:00]
But do they want to voice their own opinions. Do they want to
[23:00 - 23:03]
editorialize once again.
[23:03 - 23:07]
Howard K. Smith Well I can only speak for myself. I don't want to
[23:07 - 23:12]
editorialize. I sincerely do not want to state merely opinion.
[23:12 - 23:17]
I want to analyze. I feel that my job and its highest
[23:17 - 23:21]
meaning is teaching and I would like to analyze the news in a way that is
[23:21 - 23:26]
interesting and listening to the public and yet has meaning for them and tells them things they did
[23:26 - 23:31]
not quite realize before. And I don't seek to editorialize. I think the
[23:31 - 23:36]
value of editorials for an institution is exaggerated. Now in our
[23:36 - 23:41]
newspapers we maintain such a clear cut line as no other nation in the world does
[23:41 - 23:46]
between fact and opinion that I like it. But radio and television
[23:46 - 23:51]
are a little more personal it's hard to draw the line. But insofar as it's possible I would like
[23:51 - 23:56]
not to write editorials and I would like to have an editor over me to go through my stuff. I
[23:56 - 24:00]
want that to happen. But I would like for my editor to have a fairly clear idea of what he means between
[24:00 - 24:03]
editorializing and analysis. And that is not always the case.
[24:03 - 24:09]
Whether a journalist wants merely to analyze the news or consciously give his considered
[24:09 - 24:14]
opinions on world events it would seem that there are a number of news commentators who have in
[24:14 - 24:19]
their hands the power to sway men's minds. How are these reporters chosen
[24:19 - 24:24]
are they really capable journalists or are they placed in such positions because of personality
[24:24 - 24:28]
traits they possess in order to attain popular acceptance.
[24:28 - 24:32]
We turned to Charles and again wrote the policy is determining that choice
[24:32 - 24:37]
are I of course personally I don't know. By and large.
[24:37 - 24:42]
I would think that most of these men. Have a reasonable calm
[24:42 - 24:47]
confidence in interpreting the news. Most of them have professional news
[24:47 - 24:52]
background. God knows the true interpretation of events today is complicated for the wisest of
[24:52 - 24:57]
us. But when you speak of sever I don't know it but I'm not oh you're speaking of men. I
[24:57 - 25:01]
think of considerable quality and very wide background of experience. Well Howard K. Smith
[25:01 - 25:07]
and for good measure. I can think of commentators the Babson I'd better not
[25:07 - 25:12]
mention who I think abuse that power. And who take their role
[25:12 - 25:17]
as a commentator as an opportunity to foist upon the public prejudices which I
[25:17 - 25:22]
put in strictly propaganda terms without regard to truth. And these
[25:22 - 25:26]
I regret. But speaking generally
[25:26 - 25:31]
it's the lack of commentators with different slants on the news that I would be
[25:31 - 25:36]
critical of in prison broadcasting rather than the particular quality or competence of
[25:36 - 25:41]
those who are on the air. I don't think we've got enough.
[25:41 - 25:46]
It was represented from many of the comments heard on this
[25:46 - 25:51]
program. It would seem that the responsibility for presenting differing viewpoints
[25:51 - 25:56]
for airing editorial opinions rests squarely with management. Eric
[25:56 - 26:00]
Sevareid of CBS summarizes this issue.
[26:00 - 26:05]
You know that's the question of editorializing as stations.
[26:05 - 26:08]
They simply are not interested.
[26:08 - 26:13]
Most of these stations were founded by businessman for the purposes of making all the profit possible which is
[26:13 - 26:17]
quite natural. They don't want to offend anybody because everybody's a potential
[26:17 - 26:23]
customer. Newspapers in this country began with a different tradition.
[26:23 - 26:27]
They were not founded on the whole basis in the last century and IDM
[26:27 - 26:32]
century. By businessmen who simply wanted to make a
[26:32 - 26:37]
profit. They were founded by journalists who wanted to say something. They were often the owner as
[26:37 - 26:42]
well as the editor. That's not true much more. It hasn't been true
[26:42 - 26:47]
very much in this century. Those papers have been inherited by Suns and
[26:47 - 26:52]
by boards of directors and stockholders become more and more the business interest in
[26:52 - 26:57]
them dominates. Radio started out that way.
[26:57 - 27:01]
That's quite a different tradition. They're perfectly free to go to have it go ahead and
[27:01 - 27:05]
editorialize. So why don't they. They don't want to. I think they should.
[27:05 - 27:12]
I don't think the business of worrying about monopoly of an air wave
[27:12 - 27:17]
or this is a people's property assigned to them and therefore they must not repent I think that's nonsense. There are
[27:17 - 27:22]
far more radio stations as means of communication that have started in this country in the
[27:22 - 27:26]
last 15 years in daily newspapers. It is papers go down a number of
[27:26 - 27:32]
radio and television stations a vastly increased number of perfectly absurd to say that the
[27:32 - 27:37]
one that has been diminishing because it's entirely a private thing with no
[27:37 - 27:41]
governmental franchise at all is the only one that you have the right to editorialize
[27:41 - 27:45]
and that the larger more numerous medium shouldn't.
[27:45 - 27:50]
That's ridiculous. They don't do it because they don't want to do it. Afraid of trouble.
[27:50 - 27:57]
Whether or not the broadcasting industry meets the challenge is put forth by Eric Sevareid. It
[27:57 - 28:02]
appears fairly certain that editorializing on the airwaves is here to stay. Well
[28:02 - 28:07]
it may be true that such problems as equal time and the desire to make money still stand in the way of
[28:07 - 28:12]
an expanded and improved editorial service on radio and television. The door has been opened
[28:12 - 28:17]
and as evidenced by most of the comments made today editorializing by and large is
[28:17 - 28:21]
supported by responsible journalists in all the mass media. We are living in a
[28:21 - 28:26]
time which demands more new analysis more interpretive reporting more
[28:26 - 28:30]
commentary. It remains for the practitioners the reporters and editors of
[28:30 - 28:35]
newscasters to find the ways and means to present the news as well as their opinions
[28:35 - 28:40]
about the meaning of the news. With professional skill and integrity and in the long run it
[28:40 - 28:44]
remains for the reading and listening public to learn to distinguish between the reporting of
[28:44 - 28:49]
news and a statement of personal opinion. If and when such conditions are
[28:49 - 28:54]
met editorializing on the air may one day attain the stature of its widely accepted
[28:54 - 28:57]
predecessor the newspaper editorial.
[28:57 - 29:02]
You have been listening to editorializing one of a series of programmes on news in 20th century
[29:02 - 29:07]
America in this series we explore all facets of the gathering writing and dissemination of
[29:07 - 29:12]
news in this country today by means of recorded interviews with leading news men and
[29:12 - 29:16]
women interviewers for the series are Glenn Phillips and Ed Burroughs
[29:16 - 29:21]
consulted on today's program was Professor Kenneth steward of the University of Michigan Department of
[29:21 - 29:26]
journalism news in 20th century America. It's produced by the
[29:26 - 29:31]
University of Michigan broadcasting service under a grant and aid from the Educational Television
[29:31 - 29:36]
and Radio Center and is distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters.
[29:36 - 29:40]
They'll stage a speaking. This is the NEA B Radio Network.