" the Strange Birth Of'cbs Reports'" Revisited
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUMEL ED 205 963 CS 206 427 AUTHOR Baughman, James L. TITLE "The Strange Birth of 'CBS Reports'" Revisited. .PUB DATE Aug 81 NOTE 24p.: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism (64th, East Lansing, M/, August 8-11, 1981). EBBS PRICE MP01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Broadcast industry: *Broadcast TO.evision: Case Studies: *News Reporting: *Programing (Broadcast): Socioeconomic Influences \ IDENTIFIERS *Broadcast History: *CBS !rports ABSTRACT - Aired by the Columbia Broadcasting system (CBS) during the 1960s, "CBS Reports" proved to be one of that network's most honored efferts at television news coverage. CBSchairman, William S. Paley, based his decision to air the show on the presence of a sponsor and in response to the prospect of an open-endedFederal Communications Commission (FCC) Inquiry into network operations and a critics' tempest over the departure of another CBS News Program, ."See It Nov." The path of "CBS Reports" serves to illustrate twopoints: the economics of prograNing in the 1950s did mattergreatly to at least one network deciding for prime time news, andcritics and regulator) probably,did influence such determinations.(HOD) ** 4 *$ * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EOVC.ITIONAL RESOURCES AtFORMATION CENTER IERtCt .9 the docutown tve been teprodk.cod es "coned Rom the tenon co oroamabon t*Newry 4 Move changes have been mete to ."Mont teorOducten gyably History Division P0,071.0lva, a opinions maid n the docv meni do not /*cemet', r*Preitat °He. WE DOWN orpoin "The Strange Birth of.CBS Reports" Revisited I James L. Baughman School of Journalism and Mass Communicat University of Wisconsin-Madison PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS SEEN GPiNTEO &1 James L. Baughman LI TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENIZER (ERIC/ A r4 Submitted for consideration to the History pi, sion,Association for Education in Journalism, for presentation to4hi 1981 annual convention in EiSt Lansing, Michigan.' VD 4 1 q 4 31 March;1481 V) I ; c) 2 "The Strange Birth of CBS Reports" Revisited f At his alma mater in May, 1959, CBS PresidentAank Stantonannounced that the Columbia B oadcasting System planned for thefall season a new, hour-long aformatial program, cgs Reports. With the efficiency of the corporate 'ten of the 1950s, Stanton's underlings atCBS distributed to opinion leaders everywhere copies of the president's address. Th4 network's executive asserted thast beginning in October, the program would runmonthly.' Fred W. Friendly, co-producer of the critically hailed butcanceled See It 1 Now, was named executive producer of CBS Reports. Aired during the 1960s, CBS Reports proved to be one of the network's mosthonored efforts at tele- 'e vision news. Why did Stanton/and hiscorpOration give America CBS Reports?Why in May, 1959was the series' adventindicated? Stanton's speech most likely reflected three considerations. First, CBS Televisionenillyed a better financial position than a year or two earlierllhat is,mariagement could afford CBS Reports in May, 1959, it could not pay for See It Now one year earlier. Second, Columbia had been under attack for scheduling changes instituted between 1957 and 1958. And an unanticipated adversary, the long dormant Federal Communications Commission (FCC), earlyin 1959 launched a ;major inquiry into network operations. These conditions spurred Columbia executives i4o acting against their immediate interest to protecttheir long term investment from government interference. Such decisions to telecast news p;ograms in eveningprime time have long puzzled historians of mass communications. Until very recently, most informa- tional programming obtained low, sometimes minisculeratings, and especially 3 2 V I rm. ,4 , when compared to entertainment series.,Yet .the national networks almost . "' //I\\I' , alwaysprovided sometie'segments for news programs. ( . In accounting for- such enterpreneurial sacrifice, obpervers and ' hiatorians of broadcasxing have gone from the Ohrticular to the sublime. In his memoirs, ,Friendly saw a connection between.the birth of CBS Reports and the scandals later uncovered in the presentation of many of CBS' poRuBar quiz programs. While Stantop and others at Columbia planned CBS Reports, the fix 4 of Dotto, Tic, Tac, Though and other programs was undei investigation. Once exposed, the Baud could do untold damage to the industry's prestige. The creation of Reports, Friendly argued, could'be created to dull the knives of televisio5's 2 harshest critics. Subsequent empirical observatUns,-grouping all three networks and measuring prime time programming patterns, tend to confirm FriendWs point; that an increase in network non-entertainment programming 3 actuallx,preceded the quiz show exposes of late 1959. Nevertheless, all three networks did boost news programming soon after a House committee in October and November, 1959 publicly.and conclusively proved that the quiz programs had been rigged. Suddenly, special fetres on President Dwight Eisenhower's overseas tours and the 1960 presidential cam- paign absorbed evening hours. The networks regularly scheduled informational series like NBC's Chet Huntley Reporting and ABC'sClose-Up! for the great audience. "Charlie Van Doren," one wag noted, referring to a fallen star of 4 the quiz series, "did great things for information programming." Finally, some recent scholars have tried to explain the decision for CBS Reports bydiminishing that determination's actual significance> Up to twenty-five years of programming hii.re been categorized and correlated to discover a consistent} managerial view regarding when and how much news should 4 go on the air. One survey found that "reality" programs'(news, public affairs, interview) tended to lose schedule slots to action-filled melodramas 4 4 I 3 K ( or. situation comedies, and that economic forces explained such shifts.That ' . ). - . if, good times encouraged homogdneity in the schedules on the networks; which, .1 cut back onless profitable, less popular inforrAtional series to accrue even 5 -higher profits. A more exacting linearanaly sis of-documentary scheduling between 1950 and 1274 finds a similarly negative relationship betweenmor\ (1\ 6 money earned, and more news aired. Numerous problems, however, surface in such,an approach to broadcast history. A precision is gained over persuasive rhetoric.But distinctions between networks and periods tend to be obscured and in some cases, at least, at the cost ofrendering'violence to history itself. For example,Edward/ Jay Epstein's study of NBC News clearly demonstwes that the then two leaders in news coverage, NBC and Co umbia, held to strikingly different philosophies concerning economic circumst nce and news scheduling.NBC lacked CBS' array r 4 of popular entertainment programs, and hence, aired more news programs because 7 its managers believed they had little `et her choice. Then, too, economic . 1 considerltifts might influencea network in the ]:950s and'not in the 1970s. A recent study oi American television in the Fifties uncovered a strong 0 relationship between the economic imperatives of management and what came . 8 over the air. Such a tie need not necessarily operate two decades later. Historians' should recognize that things change, even'in entertainment managemenk, rather than stay the same, Lifeless way so much the fashion of the more clumsy practitioners of social s cience. 4 If quantitative leaps prove only marginally helpful excursions, more traditional methods pose little relief, for investigations into broadcast history can ba frustrating in other ways. The networks do not provide the access to archives that the State Department or retired congressmed do. Those A 5 4 few whothave been granted entry to the records of CBSand\qther chainsmore 9 often uncover the timelessly worthless press release. Still; arival and other discreet evidence does(exist. The FCC Records and even the pap2 rs of some congressmen include illuminating documentation. C-Taped, memoirs -- most in the Oral gistory Collection of Columbia Unistersity include the reminiscences of Stanton and others at CBS. These materials -,,AC combined with information'available in published sources enable one to reconstruct at least in part the mind of the media manager ofMay, 1959. That process of reconstruction is supported by old and recent theoretical formulations id journalism history. Croce, Collingwood andButterfi4ldall suggest that historians can better comprehendchange by recreating the ". historical situation, to replicate, in, other words, the dec sion-making processes of thoselcontemplating matters later deemed of h torical.cons quence. James Carey -- borrowing heavily from Butterfield -- has d bbed this "cul ural . 0 histoty., Ernest May, diplomatic historian, more modestly describes the I method as "explaining the past by achieving empathy with the people who ,11 experienced it. Part of that understanding process is to recognize the managerial structure at CBS, to know who decided what wentover the air and when. Stanton gave the CBS Reports speech and took credit for the program when "c"\ talking with friends and sympathetic biographers uncomfortable with most every-, 12 think else on the ColuMbia schedule. But few at CBS collaborate Stanton's 13 assertion. Although Stanton)probably influenced the move, CBS Chairman William -\\ S. Paley, who effectively owned the network,