“An Analysis of the Radiobroadcasting Activities of Federal Agencies”
Excerpt from Sayre, Jeanette, “An Analysis of the Radiobroadcasting Activities of Federal Agencies,” Studies in The Control of Radio, Numbers 1–6, no. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Littauer Center, June 1941)
Excerpted by Aimee-Marie Dorsten
1. THE SETTING
a. Introduction
Students of political science have been concerned lately with the relations of administrative agencies to older branches of government. In the last twenty years bureaus or commissions dealing with specialized problems have been set up, either directly responsible to the Congress (in theory) or to some existing department. The officials, many of them highly skilled technicians, have been entrusted with the execution of legislation, as well as with suggesting legislation for situations about which they have information, or with helping in policy formation. The rulings of these bureaus and commissions have the force of law. Often it would be difficult to explain to Congress these rulings, which are made to carry out a policy defined so broadly by Congress that the commission or agency has been forced to act on its own responsibility. When policy has been ill defined or is outdated, the danger of difficulties between these groups and Congress is enhanced. There are at present two checks upon the independent groups: the judgment of experts in the field, and the judgment of citizens. If citizens do not fulfill the requirements made of them by a law, the agency charged with its enforcement has failed in its task. Of recent years there has been an increasing tendency toward “citizen participation” in such matters. The agencies have established offices of information which perform two tasks: keeping the citizen informed about the work of the agency, and keeping the agency informed about the reaction of citizens to its performance.1
Along with other channels of communication, these agencies have used radio. The problems of using it are both like and unlike those of other media. Like the movie, radio grew up with most of the agencies, so that each agency had to learn the technique of using it for itself, rather than being able to draw on the accumulated experience of others, as has been possible in the case of the press. Like the movies, also, it was an extremely expensive way to reach people, if measured at the source without thought of the number of people reached, but comparatively inexpensive if it could draw large audiences. Like the press, material had to be treated both regionally and nationally in order to use radio to its maximum effectiveness. All three media depend upon private business for their distribution (if one excludes the relatively unimportant showings of governmental documentary movies to organized groups of all kinds). Federal users of radio had to face the fact that advertisers, who might disagree with some policy they wished to publicize, in part controlled the medium through which they were speaking. Radio broadcasters depend upon reaching mass audiences in order to attract advertisers, the source of their income. Therefore, radio programs which appeal to only a few do not serve the main purpose of the medium. The same thing is true of movies, but not of the press, where a release from a government department may be buried in the back pages of a newspaper, with the editor knowing full well that only those who are interested will notice and read it. The broadcaster in a federal agency, as well as the film producer, also had to reckon with the belief of most people (perhaps including myself) that whatever is heard over the air or seen in a movie theater profoundly influences thinking and action. Only recently have studies been made which show that the influences of these media is not nearly as great as has been imagined. These studies have not altered as of yet the prevailing uncritical attitude. Hence radio and movie activities are still being subjected to more careful scrutiny by Congress and pressure groups than is the case with newspaper releases. Moreover, the use of radio and movies by federal agencies came into its own during the Roosevelt administration, while press activities have been familiar for many years. The use of radio, therefore, has been made the occasion for political controversy. Thus any conclusions that may be reached concerning the use of radio by federal agencies apply in the main to radio, although they may illuminate somewhat the problems of other media.
This study examines the radio activities of federal agencies from three points of view: the historical setting, an analysis of the work of three representative agencies, and the broadcasters’ point of view. Some conclusions will be drawn about the use of radio by the government.
[...]
VI. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
[…]
With the rise of totalitarian governments abroad, the functions of the new federal administrative agencies have been challenged by some observers, who feared similar trends in this country. These people have been concerned about the danger of centralization of control over various facets of citizens’ welfare in Washington, and the danger that the independence of these groups from Congress may lead to an irresponsible bureaucracy. Their publicity functions have been criticized especially, because governmental propaganda bureaus abroad have performed notoriously well. Moreover, the intellectual climate of this country in the post-war period led to a critical view of all publicity functions. Pacifist sentiment has been fed upon horror of the activities of the Creel Committee as well as of the “Big Businessmen” who were supposed to have maneuvered us into the last war. With the growth of advertising and other publicity functions by private business into a major industry in this period, consumers’ groups have grown up to challenge these attempts to sell ideas or commodities. Such an organization as the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which exposed as propaganda the information functions of groups, regardless of the nature of the group or its purpose, was indicative of the prevailing temper of mind. Only of very recent years has there been any thoughtful discussion of the difference between education and propaganda, between the presentation of necessary and useful information by some groups and propaganda, between propaganda by groups working constructively for the democratic way of life and that of groups which seek to undermine it.
These challenges have made especially difficult the work of governmental agencies in seeking to elicit citizens’ participation in their work. Citizens have been wary of accepting information presented to help them carry out legislation passed by their Congress. Congress itself challenged the right of these agencies to use radio for publicity work. Organized groups opposing the work of the agencies have been quick to protest to Congress or to the agency itself about the publicity work undertaken to facilitate the carrying out of legislation entrusted to the agency. In using radio, the agencies have had their informational and publicity work further subjected to the scrutiny of private business, which did not wholly approve of some of the governmental policies during the Roosevelt regime.
[…]
Moreover, lack of finances has forced the government to pinch on program expenses. What bureau or agency can afford the Detroit Symphony Orchestra to lure listeners to hear the capsuled political philosophy of an Administration spokesman as Mr. Ford can for his point of view? In a sense the WPA Federal Music Project has done this, but without the prestige, and without the guest stars which are so much a part of the Ford symphony program package. Most other agencies have been forced to rely on techniques which are simple and inexpensive, as the straight talk or interview, and the material is usually mimeographed, so that the agency has no way of knowing how good the speaker presenting the information will be. A few have gone into the field of elaborate, but fairly cheap melanges of a little music, chorus work, simple dramatic shots, narration. Without adequate talent and direction these have not been a great success. In addition, Congressional scrutiny has forced the radio men in the government to be quite high-toned. What is possible for the advertiser in the way of appealing to lower stratifications of audience taste is considered undignified for a government. We know that there is a stratification in listener programs preference roughly parallel to socio-economic status. A government broadcaster may know that the type of program he should use to appeal to the group he wished to reach is completely out of the question. Yet an advertiser is free to use the whole range of program forms in getting across his message.
Lack of money for programs and lack of trained personnel has made the government broadcasters rather inept users of the medium. In their relation with stations, for instance, they have relied on a piecemeal basis of contact, some outright stupid handling, and an aloof attitude which has annoyed a good many broadcasters. Advertisers are deeply concerned with station relations, often supplementing the networks’ announcements of programs with other announcements, visits to the stations, gift samples, etc. They pay for time on air, and how much more need those who ask for free time solicit cooperation. Some of the agencies leave this work to local representatives of the department, which usually makes broadcasters more willing to accept a program, although they are horrified, sometimes, at the representatives’ lack of knowledge of radio. The Department of Agriculture has made some effort to educate its field people in the use of radio, but few other groups have seen this is a problem. No wonder that they have had their progress, if taken at all, put into bad listening hours…
[…]
From many points of view the essential lack is some agency to coordinate the radio work of the various departments. The Office of Government Reports, which had hoped to be such a group, was not completely successful, because of the antagonism of broadcasters in the government who disagreed with its production methods or its theories of broadcasting, or who were afraid of losing their jobs if they cooperated. The recent debate in Congress on funds for radio work for this group reflected this failure, as well as the fear of “censorship” accentuated by developments abroad. Democracy means freedom for the expression of many points of view, but it need not mean inefficiency. If the experience and personnel of the government in radio were pooled, money could be spent more expeditiously, programs would be approved, stations would be happier, and more people would listen to federal programs. In a situation of national emergency such a central programming agency is more necessary than ever. Although it would seem unwise in wartime for the government to take over the operation of broadcasting stations, it must be able to reach citizens quickly and effectively. Without some central agency to do work of coordination and to set up program standards, private broadcasters will be put in the position of passing judgment on the merits of government programs and of establishing priorities for the various agencies wanting time on the air. Broadcasters are not in a position to do this adequately, for no outsider could, and in addition, the social attitude of broadcasters is often much like that of their advertisers, one that has challenged the whole theory of the Administration in recent years. It is up to Congress to realize that the morale of the nation in a time of national emergency can hardly be left in the hands of private interests.2
Friedrich. C. J. “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility,” Public Policy, vol. 1. edited by C. J. Friedrich and E. S. Mason (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940) pp. 3-24. ↩
For a more complete discussion of this problem, see C. J. Friedrich, “Controlling Broadcasting in War-time”, Studies in the Control of Radio, No. 2. (Harvard University, 1940). ↩