Broadcasting, Critics, and Public Interest [Broadcasting: An Introduction to Radio and Television (1978)]

American broadcasting operates as a private profit making industry which is subject to certain government controls. The broadcast industry has problems that are shared by no other American industry: broadcasting is the only business in which the owners are expected, and often required, to put the public interest ahead of profit. Unfortunately, profit-making and public interest are not always congenial concepts.

Although everyone is clear about what constitutes profit, not everyone can define the term, public interest. Congress, through the Communications Act of 1934, has indicated that public interest means that broadcasters should en courage free speech, permit discussion of controversial issues, take responsibility for their own programming, and serve their local communities. The extent to which broadcasters should do this has never been defined. Many feel that this term should encompass much more. Some believe that programming in the public interest should exceed the mere entertainment level by being useful, enlightening, or uplifting. Others believe that public interest means hiring more minority groups and portraying them in a more realistic manner in broadcast programming.

Whatever the idea of public interest, broadcasters believe that it will cost them money. They argue that programs that go beyond entertainment have few viewers and lose money. They point out that it takes money, and staff to seek out controversial ideas, to produce local programming, and to train minority employees. Most of the arguments between the broadcasters and the critics end in stalemate. The broadcasters blame the critics for having little business sense and the critics blame the broadcasters for being profit-hungry. As with many issues, the truth probably lies somewhere in-between.

We will concentrate basically on three types of problems in this section: the first involves politics and government, the second examines mass or popular culture and its relationship to traditional culture, and the final issue is that of media images or how people would like to see themselves portrayed in broadcast programs. The following section examines the critics of broadcasting along with some of the issues with which they are concerned.

THE CRITICS: WHO ARE THEY?

All critics have somewhat the same purpose in reacting to the broadcast industry; that is, they hope to improve the quality of programming. Critics have approached the critical process from all perspectives. Some have written personal reactions to the industry; some have done considerable research into the historical and economic development of the industry, while still others have conducted experimental research. The writings and conclusions of these critics have varied greatly. Some critics believe that the broadcast industry is basically sound and needs few changes, while others believe that the entire structure must change. Those who favor extensive change have not always had creative solutions; as with most problems, they are easier to state than to solve.

One group of critics that devotes itself to a study of radio and television is composed of members of college and university faculties throughout the country. Although many of these people are on mass communication faculties, there are also many sociologists, political scientists, and economists who also write about broadcasting. These critics probably do the most in-depth investigating of and reporting about the broadcast industry. Unfortunately, since this writing is often highly scholarly or technical, it is never read by the general public. Many members of the broadcast industry feel that academic critics live in an -ivory tower- and are unable to understand the realities of the -real world. - These critics are certainly not regarded as part of the broadcast establishment.

Critics who write regularly or who freelance for newspapers and magazines comprise the second group. The New York Times, for example, carries regular articles about broadcasting. Most of the popular writing about broadcasting, however, is limited to information about radio and television programming and stars; there is little writing about how the industry works or how it affects society.

Politicians have also jumped into the critical arena. Richard M. Nixon and Spiro Agnew often criticized television for its liberal bias. Long after they resigned, they continued to blame television and other news media for being responsible for ending their political careers. The Democrats have also not been happy with news coverage: Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter have all been critical of media news coverage. Because the media have been so essential to twentieth century politics and politicians, many of the politicians have been particularly critical; in fact, some have even attempted to suppress those media that treated them unkindly.

During the late sixties and early seventies, citizen's groups began organizing to see if they could improve broadcasting. Most of these groups were another variation of the consumer groups that were appearing throughout the country. Some of the citizen's groups set up a permanent organization with the idea of improving broadcasting in general; other groups were more task oriented.

Many of the short-term groups were very successful. A group in Jackson, Mississippi caused a television station to lose its license because it was not meeting the needs of its black viewers. Another group in New York City challenged the right of WNCN, a radio station, to change its format from classical to rock when the station was purchased by a new owner. Their actions caused the new owners to resell the station to another company that agreed to retain the station's classical format. Other groups, particularly minority and women's groups, have worked behind the scenes with station management to bring about improved hiring practices and to encourage minority and women's programming.

There are also reform groups that have permanent organizations. Action for Children's Television (ACT) was formed in 1968 to improve children's programming and to eliminate commercials from children's programming. Although they have not been able to eliminate commercials, they have succeeded in reducing the number of commercial minutes on children's programs.

The United Church of Christ organized its Office of Communication in 1957 and has since provided assistance to citizens who want to improve local radio and television stations. This group played an important role in helping the citizen's group to win its case against the television station in Mississippi.

The National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB) is one of the most influential groups. Based in Washington, this group works for citizen's rights and publishes Access, a bimonthly magazine of criticism of industry practices and regulation. NCCB also has a lobby group in Washington.

More specialized media groups include the National Black Media Coalition, the National Latino Media Coalition and the Task Force on Broadcast Media, which is part of the National Organization for Women.

The main goal of all of these groups is to improve the industry through action rather than through speculative writing. These groups not only see the problems in the industry but have very specific ideas about improvements. Al though the emergence of the citizen's groups does not please broadcasters, many of the groups have been successful and there will probably be many more formed in the future.

THE ISSUES

News

If the broadcast industry were expected only to provide entertainment programming there would probably not be so much criticism of and apprehension over the industry's power. Because the industry provides news, documentary, and public affairs programming, however, the critics are more apprehensive. Two questions are commonly asked of broadcast journalism: 1) is broadcast news going beyond the news function and creating news as well as covering it? and 2) to what extent does broadcast news distort the facts? To answer these questions we must attempt to define news.

Everyone would agree that a tornado, an assassination, or a war is news.

However, all people might not agree that a demonstration, a press conference or a bicentennial celebration is also news. Daniel J. Boorstin, a historian, distinguishes between news and non-news or what he calls pseudo-events.

Boorstin says that pseudo-events are not spontaneous; someone plans them or incites them and they are planned primarily for the purpose of being reported.

The most important question regarding a pseudo-event, he says, is not "Is it real?" but "Is it newsworthy?" Sometimes a pseudo-event is planned by the person who wants news coverage. For example, the President of the United States may call a press conference to inform reporters about a new domestic policy. Other times the reporters go out and create news by interviewing people who are "newsworthy." News coverage of pseudo-events is not necessarily bad. Many investigative and interpretative stories result from reporters looking for news. The problem with pseudo-events comes when they are created by people for the sole purpose of getting their name or organization into the news. At both the 1968 and 1972 political conventions many demonstrators "staged" their demonstrations in order to get maximum television coverage. During the 1972 Republican Convention in Miami a group of veterans demanded entry to the convention hotel. Later in an interview they explained that they did not want to get into the hotel; they wanted television cameras to record their being turned away.

Demonstrators are not the only ones to have used the media for their own purposes. People all over the world have realized that whatever is covered by the news media, particularly by television, gains importance. Before the United States and Cuba agreed on a strategy for deterring hijackers, several persons periodically hijacked airplanes to Cuba, often in order to get personal publicity in the nation's media. When the Symbionese Liberation Army kid napped Patricia Hearst they not only used the media for publicity for the group, they also used it to communicate their demands to the Hearst family. As one writer remarked, However futile the result, for a few weeks, the SLA, the world's smallest army (maximum complement estimated at twelve souls), commanded the world's largest information machine at will.

Other people are even more blatant in their use of the news media. Evel Knievel, for example, gets considerable news coverage and is well recognized for his ability to manipulate the news media. He believes, in fact, that in another twenty years or so he will be so well known that he will be able to run for the presidency.

In the late 1970s, the problem of terrorists manipulating the media became so serious that CBS News issued guidelines for covering terrorist and hostage stories. The guidelines stated that unless terrorist demands were free from political rhetoric, they should be paraphrased and presented by newspersons rather than by the terrorists. CBS News also said that, except under compel ling circumstances, there should be no live coverage of terrorists or kidnappers and that such stories should not be given so much time on the newscast that other important stories are omitted. 3 Although these guidelines may help to control media manipulation, the fact remains that such stories are news and they cannot be completely ignored, even when news organizations know that the persons involved have the goal of controlling the media for their own political platforms. It is also bad business to neglect stories. If ABC refuses to cover a demonstration that is later shown on CBS and NBC, ABC could lose in ratings and, consequently, in advertisers.

News, like entertainment, must be profitable.

Both radio and television news face the problem of filling a set period of time every day regardless of the quantity and quality of news stories. Unlike news papers that can add or delete pages depending on the length or number of stories, broadcast news is expected to fill the time that has been allotted to it.

The evening news shows, for example, are a half-hour long every night.

Regardless of the immensity or scarcity of news events which have occurred during the day, this news must be stretched or condensed to fit the half-hour.

This very act of expanding and condensing stories introduces some bias into broadcast news.

Television news has another problem that is unique to news operations. In order to cover a story, the station or network must send out a crew of technicians rather than a single reporter. This crew goes out with film or video tape, audio equipment, and lights. Because these crews cannot move quickly or easily, news producers, especially on the national level, prefer stories that can be scheduled in advance rather than those that occur spontaneously. The net works are also more likely to cover stories in cities in which their own crews are stationed rather than stories that occur in out-of-the-way places.

Television news also seeks out the visual and the sensational. When producers select stories, they decide on those which have the most action and look the most interesting. For example, television news will linger over scenes of battles, but it will just briefly show the visually dull negotiations. This practice obviously introduces bias into television news. However, the fact that television news is highly visual is also in its favor. Because of television news many of us see unusual places and events that we would most likely never see in person. From Bombay to Beirut-a panorama of international events is presented to us in our own living rooms.

Corporate Ownership of Broadcasting

The corporate ownership of broadcast property has raised at least two issues of public interest. One issue deals with conflict of interest and the other deals with corporate misuse of media.

Many radio and television stations and networks are owned by giant corporations and conglomerates. Because these huge companies own a wide variety of companies in addition to their broadcast properties, the question is raised whether networks and stations can run news operations that might conflict with corporate goals. For example, in the mid-1970s, the record industry suffered a series of payola scandals, some of which involved Columbia Records, which is owned by CBS. Did the CBS radio and television networks and stations treat this story as just another story or did they deemphasize it? RCA, which owns NBC, receives substantial revenues from government contracts involving the Department of Defense. They also sell electronic parts internationally to industries and governments. If a news event occurs that involves one of the RCA's industrial partners or defense interests, does NBC treat it as it treats other news? Although there is no evidence of corporation manipulation of news, the potential for abuse is obvious.

Some critics also claim that the large corporations use the networks to pro mote corporate values. Since corporations are the only organizations large and rich enough to afford national advertising rates, they have considerable power over network television. It does not seem likely, for example, that a network is going to do a hard-hitting documentary on automobile pollution when some of its largest advertisers are automobile manufacturers.

Some critics also claim that corporations use television to improve their corporate image. John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist, claims that when a corporation is accused of pollution, of destroying natural resources, or of endangering the public safety, the corporation immediately embarks on an advertising campaign to show the company's devotion to the environment, conservation, and public safety. In other words, the company never solves the problem. Not only is the advertising campaign cheaper, it becomes a substitute for a solution. Political Candidates American political campaigns have been greatly affected by radio and television. With the advent of television it was possible for the first time in history for the voice and the image of the candidate to reach every American home.

Americans who might not have been interested in politics before could no longer avoid the campaign-the candidates appeared between and sometimes in, favorite programs. Because of the candidates' involvement with the entertainment media, it became apparent that the candidates themselves might be come "personalities" or "stars" in the voters minds rather than men and women concerned with serious political issues. However, once television was established as part of political campaigning, candidates were convinced that it had a greater potential for good than for harm.

Advertising agencies and media specialists became part of the American campaign scene in 1952 when Dwight D. Eisenhower hired Batten, Barton, Durstine, and Osborn (BBDO), a major advertising agency, to help plan his campaign. BBDO, in fact, also helped Richard Nixon by arranging and buying time for his Checker's speech. Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, and Carter have all used advertising agencies--sometimes depending on them only for commercials, other times consulting them for a much broader campaign strategy.

After advertising agencies began handling political accounts, critics began to complain that candidates were being sold to the public in the same way as breakfast cereal. They said that when the emphasis shifted to the candidate's image and personality, political issues were forgotten. They also pointed out that when an advertising agency built an image for a candidate it also had to control that image for if the candidate acted spontaneously it could easily ruin a carefully created illusion. Thus, an agency-controlled candidate would not be free to talk to people directly-every aspect of the campaign would be rehearsed and staged.

An extreme of what an agency could do occurred in California in the sixties when a Senator decided to seek reelection even though he had undergone brain surgery, was partially paralyzed, and could barely walk or talk. He announced that he would be a candidate in a 42-second film that was so skillfully edited that there was no indication of his disability. Whether the candidate could have won through agency efforts will never be known since he died before the primary. The whole incident, however, raises serious questions about manufacturing images for political candidates.

In a national campaign an agency is certain to use television since it is the best way to reach so many people. Also the public is so accustomed to seeing candidates on television that a prime-time appearance gives the candidate both additional credibility and legitimacy in the voters' eyes.

Unfortunately, not all candidates are equal on television since some are visually more appealing than others. Many critics believe, for example, that Kennedy's victory over Nixon in 1960 was partially due to the fact that Kennedy looked better on television. Nixon later learned how to use television to his ad vantage by hiring a media specialist, but it was not until 1968 that he regained his political position. Conceivably, the political parties could eliminate potential candidates simply because they do not have the "right" look and sound for the broadcast media.

Another objection that critics have to media campaigns is the great cost- especially for television. Only candidates who are wealthy or who can amass funds can afford media campaigns. At the presidential level, the party and the government will pay much of the costs for the candidate. However, at the state and local level the winning candidate is often the person who has enough money to invest in a media campaign.

Because commercial time is so expensive, politicians try to appear on the news as much as possible. Not only is the news free, it also has greater credibility than paid time. Candidates go to great lengths to attract reporters. The campaign manager prepares news releases, detailed schedules of where the candidate will be and often arranges for food and alcohol for those who follow the "campaign trail." In some cases a candidate may hire photographers or film crews and make his or her own photographs or film available to local stations.

When a candidate is shown touring the local slums, the photographer is there because the campaign manager arranged it. Candidates are also not adverse to news manipulation in order to get maximum coverage. They create pseudo events, such as frequent press conferences and mud slinging bouts with their opponents. They engage in stunts that are designed to attract maximum news coverage, such as walking across their state. The press releases may be far from accurate-especially when they estimate the number of people who attended the latest political rally. A good deal of effort is spent in creating situations that will get maximum news coverage.

There is a good deal of news value in a political campaign; in fact, in a Presidential election year the campaign may be the most important news item of all. It would take a wise news staff to always be able to distinguish between genuine news and pseudo news. However television news is more inclined to cover the nonessential than any other news medium. Candidates virtually monopolize the airwaves in an election year and more than one American has been happy to return to toothpaste commercials and everyday political battles after the election is over.

A candidate who makes all decisions based on advice of a media specialist is not a good, or even a typical, candidate. A media specialist would probably advise a candidate against taking a stand on controversial issues, yet many candidates are willing to take strong positions on issues. Although a media specialist might suggest only a media campaign, many candidates prefer to travel across the country to meet and talk with the people. Probably the greater majority of candidates aim for a well-balanced campaign in which they use all of the media as well as make personal appearances. The candidate to be suspicious of is the one who avoids personal appearances and who relies solely on television to convey his or her image.

Mass Culture and High Culture

One frequent objection to mass media is that they deal so seldom with serious cultural topics such as art, classical music, and literature. Instead the media specialize in popular entertainment that is mass produced and simple enough to be easily understood by everyone. Although all mass media provide mass entertainment, television reaches so many people and consumes so much time that it is held to be the main purveyor of mass culture; that is, the average person's view of the world and the kind of entertainment that represents it.

Those who oppose mass culture generally oppose the level of television programming.

There are arguments for and against mass culture. Proponents contend that it is democratic in that everyone can both afford and understand it. They also believe that mass culture serves a useful function in society by giving viewers and listeners a chance to relax and enjoy themselves without expending great mental effort since it is un-intellectual in nature. Some people, they argue, do not want to be uplifted and enlightened all the time-they are often content to be purely diverted or amused.

Some media writers have suggested that television might play a role in helping to preserve a so-called high culture by presenting such traditional cultural events as ballets and concerts. When television concentrates on mass culture, it leaves the other media free to develop specialized programming and audiences. For example, radio has become more specialized since television removed its mass audience. Because television exists, radio is forced to develop special formats. This programming ranges from classical music to progressive music; programming that was not widely available before television. These writers also point out that film has become more artistic and deals with more mature themes since the advent of television.

Opponents of mass culture argue that those who are involved in creating it are too money oriented. They fear that serious artists are beguiled by mass culture because it pays more for artists' efforts. They also argue that stations and networks are so interested in making profits that they ignore audiences of 10 or 15 million who are interested in high culture and cater to audiences of 30 or 40 million who prefer mass culture.

Another argument against mass culture is that it deals with trivia and, al though trivia may be diverting, it is not very fulfilling. Even the producers of television programs would probably agree that soap operas, game shows, and police stories are not very uplifting. However, they point out that trivia is an inevitable part of a fifteen hour programming schedule. Trivia, they claim, is essential since a classical series, such as the production of all the Shakespearean plays, could be aired in a single week of prime-time programming.

Another argument against mass culture is that it makes its audience spectators rather than participants. This argument is difficult to prove or disprove.

Mass culture and leisure time have developed almost simultaneously. If we were to ask people what they did before television, the answer would almost certainly be that they worked longer hours. We can only speculate what people would do without television. Although they might join baseball teams or choirs, it is just as likely that they would return to more radio listening and movie going, both of which call for equally passive audiences.

It is certainly a mistake to say that all mass culture is alike. Some of its offerings are sophisticated, entertaining, and deal with contemporary themes.

Other offerings are mindless and tasteless. Since mass culture is already firmly entrenched as part of American life, the main argument should probably not be whether it should remain, but rather how the bad can be improved and how the good can become even better.

Media Images

During the past ten years many groups whose primary interest was not in broadcasting have become engaged in vigorous criticism of broadcasters. Al though these groups are very diverse, including women, black people, Indians, and Mexican-Americans, they have one thing in common: they object to the way in which they are portrayed in television programming.

Black people were the first group to organize and protest. Their objection came in' 1952 when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) condemned the television version of "Amos 'n Andy" as being racist. Organized black protest against broadcasters was not to be heard again until the late sixties. Then black people began to protest that they were either not portrayed at all or that, when they were shown, it was in an unrealistic way.

They believed that black characters should be developed in their own right and that these characters should reflect black lifestyles; it was no longer sufficient to put black people into roles that anyone could play. There was also protest that programming never showed black families. It wasn't until the 1970s when Norman Lear created "Good Times" and "The Jeffersons" that black families were regularly seen on prime-time television. Critics note that there are still many areas of black programming that need improvement. Black people are seldom the subject of serious dramatic treatment. Also black news coverage and black participation in news shows as reporters and anchorpersons is still far from adequate.

While black protest came largely in the sixties, women's protest has been very much of the seventies. Women are also concerned both about their lack of media exposure and how they are portrayed on television. For example, the 1975-76 television season opened with female leads in only 13 percent of the prime-time shows. Males had leads in 63 percent of the programming and the remaining 24 percent was general family programming with no identifiable lead.

This lack of exposure also exists in commercials. In a recent study by the Screen Actors Guild, the researchers discovered that of all performers in TV commercials, 32 percent were women and 68 percent were men. When women did appear in commercials, they were more likely to be shown on-camera. Men captured 93 percent of the off-camera speaking roles and 71 percent of the off camera singing roles. As well as objecting to their relative obscurity, many women have also objected to the way in which they have been portrayed. They object to being locked into the traditional roles of housewife, secretary, teacher, and mother and want to be shown as doctors, pilots, and breadwinners as well. Perhaps no role arouses so much hostility among feminists as that of the woman as a sexual object, particularly when her body and appearance are exploited to sell a product.

As well as objecting to being portrayed in limited, traditional roles, many women object to the television ideal of a woman whose only concerns are dirty laundry and dishes. Contrary to the philosophy of many television commercials, women seem to resent being made to feel guilty about having spots on their glassware or rings around their husbands' collars.

Women and black people are not the only ones who have objected to the way they are represented. Italians have protested their portrayal as members of the Mafia. Indians complain that movies and television programs about cowboys and Indians show them as wily and treacherous and a threat to more "civilized" people. Other critics have pointed out that the protesting groups are not the only groups who are stereotyped. The Bunker family is not your typical American family nor does the TV cop resemble most law enforcement officers.

Families and policemen, however, have not joined the ranks of the protesters.

The groups who have protested about their image are not protesting an occasional program with an occasional stereotype. They believe that when a medium defines its women as sex objects, its blacks as lazy, its Italians as criminals, and its Indians as losers, it presents problems for the entire society. Not only does the society begin to believe the portrayals, it also causes identity problems for the group in question. A black adult remembered that when he was growing up, he and his brothers and sisters used to listen to "Amos 'n Andy" every week with the greatest of pleasure. Then he realized that "they" were supposed to be "us." Those groups who are protesting their media images are asking that the media portray them as they see themselves; that the "they" and the "us" become one.

Any group that criticizes television does not have an easy task. For every group that has been able to bring about change, there have been several other groups that have failed. Some groups have had to go to the courts-an expensive and lengthy process. On the other hand, many broadcasters have been responsive to the public when the public makes its interests known. When this kind of response is made, broadcasters are ready to work in the public interest.

NOTES

1. Daniel J. Boorstin -- From News-Gathering to News-Making: A Flood of Pseudo Events, - The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, rev. ed., Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Robers, (eds.,) (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971) pp. 119-120.

2. Martin Barrett, ed., Moments of Truth, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975) p. 143.

3. Broadcasting. April 18, 1977, p. 65.

4. John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics --- Public Purpose (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973) p. 158.

5. Dan Nimmo, The Political Persuaders (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970) p. 112.

6. Ibid., pp. 141-142.

7. Media Report to Women, March 1, 1975, p. 6.