sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1921 World Series, Angels Radio Network, Arch McDonald, Atlanta Crackers, Bernie Parrish, Bill Stern

I

¡Qt>. 565

MAJOR LEAGUE PRINCIPAL PLAY-BY-PLAY ANNOUNCERS:

THEIR OCCUPATION, BACKGROUND, AND PERSONAL LIFE

Michael R. Emrick

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

June 1976

Approved by Doctoral Committee

DUm,s¡ir

ABSTRACT

From the very early days of , the descriptions of games have been among the more popular types of programs. The relationship between the ball clubs and broadcast stations has developed through experimentation, skepticism, and eventual acceptance.

The broadcasts have become financially important to the teams as well as the advertisers and stations. The central person responsible for pleasing the fans as well as satisfying the economic goals of the stations, advertisers, and teams—the principal play- by-play announcer—had not been the subject of intensive study.

Contentions were made in the available literature about his objectivity, partiality, and the influence exerted on his description of the games by outside parties. To test these contentions, and to learn more about the overall atmosphere in which this focal person worked, a study was conducted of principal play-by-play announcers who broadcasted games on a day-to-day basis, covering one team for a local audience.

With the assistance of some of the announcers, a survey was prepared and distributed to both announcers who were employed in the play-by-play capacity during the 1975 season and those who had been involved in the occupation in past seasons. Thirty-six men responded.

The hypothesis for the study included contentions that the announcers would be co-operative with the baseball teams in promoting home attendance and other endeavors. It was also theorized that the announcers were listeners to games as youngsters, decided upon the career before finishing their formal education, reached the major leagues in different ways, and, having realized this childhood ambition would be happy and satisfied with their lot in life. Also, due to the pressure it was believed they experienced, it was predicted that the announcers would pursue leisure activities which would permit their being away from large groups.

It was discovered from the findings that the announcers, as a whole, eschewed the journalistic definition of reporter for that of salesman. But, it was also learned that the desire of the audience for baseball journalism was not apparent. Instead, the audience, as perceived by the announcers, was one wanting entertainment. The sample was well-eddcated (all but one of the respondents attended college), well-read, happy, and capable of mastering the pressures. And, there was support for the hypothesis that many announcers were realizing a childhood ambition by broadcasting major league baseball games. m

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A study of nearly fourteen months could not have been accomplished without the assistance of several persons.

Mr. , the play-by-play broadcaster for the

Detroit Tigers, studied the entire questionnaire during April of

1975—one of the busiest months of the season—and provided prompt, wise correspondence reflective of his professional expertise.

Mr. Shelby Whitfield, sports director of

Radio in Washington, and a past play-by-play broadcaster of the

Washington Senators, provided comments and suggestions for wording of several questionnaire items.

Mr. George Faour, executive director of the Baseball

Broadcasters Association of American and editor of its newsletter, was of assistance in encouraging co-operation among member announcers in responding to the survey.

Mr. John W. Gagne, publicity director of McMorran Place in

Port Huron, , assisted in the production of the questionnaire and its distribution to the sample.

Mr. Ted Patterson, sports director of WBAL, ,

Maryland, who had done academic studies on the careers of some baseball announcers at University, helped provide names of past announcers.

Dr. Malachi C. Topping, chairman of the radio-- film area in the College of Communications at Bowling Green State

University, provided the academic scrutiny of the research methods TV

and the organization of the writing.

As essential as the professional assistance was the moral support provided by so many friends to whom this writer is grateful.

Their confidence and encouragement was of importance in the hours of disappointment as well as the times of satisfaction in overcoming a hurdle in the writing, typing, or computations of data.

Included among those who share a part of this finished work are: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Emrick, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Emrick, Miss

Joyce Suit, Dr. Singer Buchanan, Mr. Ernie Harwell, Mr. and Mrs.

James F. Fagan, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Brockmiller, Mr. and Mrs. Robert

Armstrong, Mr. and Mrs. Ross Andrusko, Mr. Robert McCammon, Mr. Morris

G. Snider, Mr. Charles Andrea, Dr. Stefan Ansbacher, Dr. and Mrs.

Sherman Waggoner, Dr. Carl Rice, Dr. Harry M. Williams, Dr. Steven C.

Hathaway, Miss Jill Emrick, Mr. George Faour, Mr. and Mrs. Albert

Mannes, Dr. Del Hilyard, Dr. Raymond Tucker, Dr. Duane Tucker, Mr. and

Mrs. terry Gottschalk, Mr. Ted Mireau, Mr. Larry Smith, Mr. and Mrs.

James Burrows, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Suit, Mr. Lloyd Livingston, Mr.

Michael Mullins, Mr. Max Koch, and several members of the Port Huron

Flags.

Above all, for the strength to handle the task, and for the resolution to use the degree acquire to His purpose, thanks to the One in Whom "all things are possible." V

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Baseball and Media, before Radio ...... 1

The Early Baseball Broadcasts ...... 2

Television: Another Medium Struggles for Acceptance .... 8

Summary ...... 14

The Play-by-Play Announcer: A HorseP ulling Three Carts . . 15

Definitions...... 17

CHAPTER II. SURVEY OF LITERATURE ...... 20

Team Influence on the Game Description ...... 20

Partiality...... 39

Summary...... 46

Journalistic Tenets ...... 47

Background of Announcers ...... 49

Changes of Announcer and of FlagshipS tation...... 61

Summary ...... 62

Aspects of the Occupation for Study...... 67

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 95

The Questionnaire...... 97

Hypothesis...... 128

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS...... 131

Questionnaire Distribution ...... 131

Response...... 132 VI

Announcer Comments ...... 133

Findings...... 134

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,A ND SUGGESTIONS ...... 201

Summary...... 201

Conclusions...... 216

Suggestions for Further Study ...... 221

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 225

APPENDICES 229 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Inter-Relationship Between the Baseball Teams, Broadcasting Stations, Advertisers, and Play-by-Play Announcers...... 16 vm

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. American and Attendance and Television Set Sales, 1947-1975 ...... 11

< 2. Changes Among Announcers and Stations, 1961-1975 ...... 64

3. Geographic Areas and States in Which Announcers Were Raised. 136

4. Sizes of Communities in Which Announcers Were Raised .... 137

5. Age Range of Respondents in Working and Non-Working Classifications ...... 137

6. Respondent Representation in the Centers Scale of Occupations and Economic Status ...... 140

7. Announcers' Marital Status ...... 142

8. Announcers' Formal Education ....-.•...... 143

9. Announcers' Classroom Training in Broadcasting ...... 144

10. Announcers' Classroom Training in Journalism ...... 145

11. Facility of the Announcers' First Play-by-Play Sportscast . 147

12. Age of Announcers in First Year of Major League Broadcasting ...... 149

13. Respondents and Years of Major League Baseball Announcing . 150

14. Number of Changes in Team Made by the Announcers during Their Major League Careers ...... 151

15. Years of Experience and Salary of Baseball Announcers . . .152

16. Length of Search for Employment After Last Job ...... 156

17. Employer Identity ...... 157

18. Announcer Opinion on Best Employer for Announcer ...... 158

19. Announcer Opinion on Employment by Team and Relation to On-Air Treatment by the Announcer ...... 159

20. Occasions of Announcers Being Summoned by Employers, Firings, and Resignations ...... 160 IX

21. Announcers' Personal On-Air Taboos and Those Perceived from Ball Clubs ...... 162

22. Personal On-Air Taboos and Those Perceived from Ball Clubs by Demographic Groups of Announcers ...... 164

23. Opinion of Working and Non-Working Announcers on Relation of Friendship with Principal Figures and the On-Air Report...... 166

24. Occupational Group Most Important to Announcers' Work and Group Most Frequently a Part of the Announcers' Social Life...... 167

25. Announcers' Perception of Audience Baseball Knowledge . . 172

26. Announcers' Average Work Week (In Hours) When Team is Home and Away...... 175

27. Announcers' Personal Appearances During and After the Season ...... 176

28. Announcers' Perception oftersonal Happiness ...... 181

29. Announcers' Leisure Activities During and After the 2 Season...... 184

30. Announcers' Membership in Sports Broadcasting and Generic Broadcasting Organizations ...... 187

31. Religious Preferences of Announcers ...... 188

32. Involvement of Announcers in Politics ...... 190

33. Degree of Change in Attitudes and Life Style from Pre-; < Major League Days Cited by the Announcers ...... 194 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Baseball and Media, before Radio

Although baseball games were played between teams from different cities as early as the 1830s, significant coverage of games by the media began in 1869. It was in that year that the Red Stockings, professional team in baseball history, embarked on a national tour. So much attention was attracted by the tour that newspapers found they could not ignore it.

For the first time in history, newspaper reporters in various cities were assigned to cover games, and operators flashed telegraphic scores and final results to interested cities throughout the East and Middle West. It was a humble beginning, but with that tour, baseball writing was born, and sports stories elevated to a regular place in the news coverage assignments.1

By 1880, the popularity of sportswriting had grown to where most sizeable dailies were devoting specific pages to sports stories.

In 1882, the World organized the first "sports department."2

As baseball became increasingly popular, the amount of printed matter devoted to the sport increased as well. In 1883, Sporting Life,

^ord C. Frick, Games, Asterisks, and People (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1973), p. 76.

2David Quentin Voigt, American Baseball, 2 vols. (Norman, Oklahoma: Press, 1966-70), 1 (1966): 192-93. 2

a paper dealing primarily with baseball news was founded with an estimated readership of 20,000. In 1886, The , an avowed competitor to the "weakness and sexiness of the eastern papers" was created in St. Louis.3

Baseball novels became popular as writers were quick to romanticize the stars of the diamond. Baseball guides were produced in scores by sports equipment companies.

By 1910, whole sections of metropolitan newspapers were devoted to baseball, complete with photos, cartoons, and reminiscences. Baseball reporting had become a full-time occupation for a number of writers.

The job of baseball reporting was a nine-month activity and was followed by a three-month stint aimed at promoting interest for the coming year. . . . Up to ninety full-time writers were assigned to regular games. This number swelled to an army of two hundred at time. Except for press passes and maintenance, all of this cost baseball owners nothing.4 *

Historian David Voigt, in his two-volume history of baseball, summarized the period of 1870-1920 as being fifty years during which baseball and newspapers "presented a traditional pattern of promotion."3

But, these bedfellows would be upset by an intruder in 1920-- radio.

The Early Baseball Broadcasts

Even during the experimental radio broadcasts, baseball was a popular subject among listeners. During Dr. Frank Conrad's experimental

3Voigt, 1:194.

4Ibid, 2:95.

5lbid, 2:231. 3

broadcasts on station 8XK in , he found that listeners often

requested that he read baseball scores.®

In October, 1921—one year after radio sets were available for

purchase by the general public—a broadcast of the World Series on WJZ

of Newark, drew mail response from over four thousand

listeners. Historian Erik Barnouw observed that the Series broadcasts

were as instrumental to the growth in prestige of WJZ as the Harding-Cox

election broadcast had been for KDKA, Pittsburgh the year before.?

The and many other sports broadcasts of the

same period were presented to listeners by an announcer at the studio who received reports via telephone from an observer at the ball park.

The announcer simply re-described the games as he listened to the observer. But, by 1922, stations were able to begin use of direct

telephone lines which eliminated the relay system and provided listeners with an on-the-spot, live report replete with "the roar of the crowd."*8

®Robert St. John, Encyclopedia of Radio and Television Broadcasting (: Cathedral Square, 1967), p. 36.

^See Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 84 and Ben Gross, I Looked and Listened (New York: Random House, 1954), p. 58.

8When stations began to broadcast frequent regular season games, the home contests were usually described by the announcer directly from the ball park over the leased telephone lines. Due to the high cost of telephone line connections to distant parks, and prohibitions on broadcasts b,y some club owners in those cities, the road games were often done from the station studio by the same announcer who used Western Union reports to "re-create" the game. More information on baseball re-creations may be found in: , The Broadcasters (New York: The Dial Press, 1970), pp. 107-111; Stuart Hyde, Television and.Radio Announcing (: Houghton Mifflin, 1959), pp. lSl-88; and Erik Barnouw, The Golden Web (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 289. 4

Since the right to permit or deny a broadcast rested with the owner in whose team's park the game was being played, each club had to weigh the potential effect of on attendance.9

Regular scheduled play-by-play radio broadcasts of major league games began in with the Cubs baseball team in 1924. A rewrite man for the Chicago Daily News, Hal Totten, was the announcer. Almost immediately thereafter, Quin Ryan of WGN, the station,

^A number of legal cases have upheld the right of promoters to sell broadcast rights. Among the more important during the early years of broadcasting were: 20th Century Sporting Club vs. Transradio Press Service, 165 Misc 71, 300 NY Supp 159 (1937) and Pittsburgh Athletic Company vs. KQV Broadcasting Company, 24 FSupp 490, 492 (DC Pa 1938). Another case, Woolcott vs. Shubert, 217 NY 212, 11 NE 829 (1916), granted the promoter of an event the right to exclude any kind of coverage. Other cases dealing with exclusivity provisions of rights agreements to protect the content of sports programs include: Rudolph Mayer Pt&tures, Inc. v. Pathe News, Inc., 235 AppDiv 774, 255 NYSupp 1016 (1st Dep't 1932); cf. Johnson-Kennedy Radio Corp. v. Football Club, 97 F2d 223 (7th Cir 1938); Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Muzak Corp., 177 Misc 489 30 NYS2d 419 (Sup Ct 1941); South­ western Broadcasting Co. et. al. v. Oil Center Broadcasting Co., 219 SW2d 230 (Tex Civ App 1947); WOCL "baseball re-creation" decision, Newton, 2 FCC 381, 1936; Chavez v. Hollywood Post No. 43 and the Don Lee Broadcasting System, California Superior Court, Nov. 1947, 16 USL Week 2362; Leeb v. Turner, 257 S.W. ("d) 8C0, 9 R.R. 2C18, 1953; International Corporation v. Wodaam Corp. 9 R.R. 2050, 1953; Liberty Broadcasting System v. National League Baseball Club of Boston, et. al., 7 R.R. 2164, 1952; Trinity Broadcasting Corporation (KELP), 10 R.R. 279, 1954; National Exhibition Company v. Fass, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), 11 R.R. 2086, 1955. Contra: National Exhibition Co. v. Teleflash, 24 FSupp 488 (SD NY 1936); Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. v. Taylor, 37 N.S.W. St. R. 322 (1936), noted in 9 AirLRev 217 (1938), 51 HarvLRev 755 (1938), 5 UofChiLRev 320 (1938); and Sports and Gen. Press Agency Co. vs. 'Our Dogs' Pub. Co. (1917) 2 KB 125. Some of the above cases are noted in Harry P. Warner, Radio and Television Rights (New York: Matthew Bender, 1953), pp. 850-54, 939, and 983 (footnote). A more detailed description of some of the cases, including the Pittsburgh Athletic Company and 20th Century Sporting Club cases may be found therein. In addition, the book provides legal background of copyright cases involving other aspects of broadcast programming and printed word. 5

began broadcasting the same games. They were just two of several

broadcasters who aired Cub games with the whole-hearted encouragement

of the team's owner, William Wrigley, Senior.

Not only did Wrigley extend an invitation to all Chicago area

stations to carry all Cub home games without cost and without

restriction, he installed the first glass-partitioned radio booths at

Wrigley field. For several seasons, seven stations broadcast the Cubs'

home games JO

Wrigley's gamble paid dividends. Attendance at home games

soared. Public interest in the Cubs spread beyond Chicago into ,

Wisconsin, Iowa, southern Michigan, and lower Illinois.

These new fans were not at all academic in their approach. They were fanatical Cub admirers, who soon began organizing special weekend expeditions to see their favorites in person. In fact, one of the first indications of the power of radio in those days was the increase in out-of-town patrons, and the number of out-of-state license plates in the ball park parking lots on weekends J1

Not all club owners agreed with Wrigley that baseball broadcasting was good for the game. The following passage from an issue of The Sporting News reflects the feelings many owners held toward radio.

Owners cursed radio because they saw the medium as a threat to live attendance. Few attempted to understand radio, and most likened it to the telegraph tickers that had been used at ball parks since the 1880s to transmit accounts of games

^Red Barber, The Broadcasters (New York: The Dial Press, 1970), pp. 89-90 and Frick, p. 106.

11 Frick, p. 107. 6

to saloons and other rallying points.^

While complaints came from some of the owners to whom the new medium was viewed as an invasion, the size of the American radio audience grew rapidly. By 1925, stations could be linked into a

"network" for the same broadcast. The broadcast of the 1925 World

Series on a network set up by WEAF of New York brought approximately fifty thousand letters to sports announcer Graham McNamee.15

Between 1922 and 1928, retail sales of radio sets rose from

$60 million to over $650 million.^ And, with the proof that more homes were acquiring the receivers, advertisers saw a potential for reaching the growing audience.

For the greatest returns on their advertising dollars, sponsors naturally wanted to buy programs that would command the biggest audiences. In their search for offerings, especially during the summertime, advertisers soon realized that baseball posed a good possibility.'5

By 1930, nine of the sixteen major league teams permitted live broadcasts of their home games.1® The concept of the "broadcast privilege fee" had not become prominent in baseball, although complaints

I^The Sporting News, 31 May 1928, cited by Voigt, 2:231.

^William Peck Banning, Pioneer: The WEAF Experiment 1922-1926 (Cambridge, : Harvard Oniversity Press, 1946), p. 144.

^Broadcasting Yearbook, 1939, p. 11, cited by Barnouw in A Tower in Babel, pp. 114, T20.’

15Voigt, 2:230.

1®Barber, p. 93. 7

that radio was reaping advertising profits and hurting attendance seemed to grow with the popularity of the medium.

In addition, newspapers complained that radio broadcasts were hurting their sales of sports "extras.

Late in 1933, owners let bids for exclusive rights to broadcast

World Series games. During that same period, individual owners began to negotiate deals for their home broadcasts. Payment of a "rights fee" guaranteed a station the privilege to describe the play-by-play of the home games. Baseball historian David Voigt claims that there were no statistics available to show that radio broadcasts harmed attendance.^

In fact, as the decade progressed and the popularity of the broadcasts increased, the baseball clubs found that they could demand increasingly higher rights fees.

In 1933, the Boston club of the National League made a modest $5,000 from radio, and within six years, all clubs were profiting. In 1939, the lowest sum any club received was $33,000 paid to the [St. Louisl Cardinals, while the [New York] Giants led all with $1IO,OOOJ9

With the combination of local and network rights, baseball broadcasting became a significant factor in the overall financial picture of each ball club. In 1933, broadcasting accounted for only

0.3 per cent of total revenues. This grew to 6.7 per cent in 1943,

l^The Sporting News, 7 June 1923 and 10 October 1929, cited in Voigt, 2:232-33.

^3Voigt, 2:233.

^The Sporting News, 27 May 1943, cited by Voigt, 2:233. 8

16.8 per cent by 1956, and, in the late 1960s, it lept to between 25 and 29 per cent.20 The presence of television caused the total figure to jump drastically in the 1950s and 1960s.

Television: Another Medium Struggles for Acceptance

On August 26, 1939, the first telecast of a major league baseball game was beamed from in .2*1 Red Barber announced

20i933-1950, Study of Monopoly Power, Pt. 6, Organized Baseball, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 82 Cong. 1 sess. (1952), pp. 968-70; 1952- 1956 local revenue, Organized Professional Team Sports, Hearings before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 85 Cong. 1 sess. (1957), Pt. 1, pp. 354-59 and Pt. 2, pp. 2046-52; and other data compiled from Broadcasting, Television Age, and Sponsor estimates and from published reports in . All above sources cited by Ira Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting,11 Government and the Sports Business, ed. Roger G. Noll (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1974), p. 290.

21The telecast was beamed using the equipment of the RCA television mobile unit, based at the New York World's Fair. The first telecast of any sports event was that of a college baseball game between Princeton and Columbia from in New York. served as the announcer for the college game. For first person accounts of the telecast, the reader may consult Stern's A Taste of Ashes, written with Oscar Fraley, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959). The New York Times commented on the telecast in its issue of 21 May 1939, sec. X, p. 10. The Times also afforded documentation of several other sports telecasts conducted during 1939. The sports subjects, with appropriate citations, included: a boxing match (27 April 1939, p. 33); thé Epsom Derby horse race (25 May 1939, p. 27); a bicycle race (28 May 1939, p. 1); a Fordham football practice (14 September 1939, 0. 31); a practice by the University football team (29 September 1939, p. 28); and a second boxing match (5 November 1939, sec. IX, p.TTO). Barnouw, in The Golden Web (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968) indicated that some "second rate wrestlers" and ice skating were also telecast subjects. That citation may be found on page 127. Other telecasts of significance, but not of sporting events, included the "Amos 'n' Andy" program with Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll appearing in blackface make-up, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the formal opening of the New York World's Fair. 9

the opening game of a Saturday afternoon between the

Dodgers and the . Larry MacPhail, the general of the Brooklyn club, agreed to the telecast in exchange for one receiver which was to be placed in the press box for him, the press, and the Dodgers' board of directors to watch. This program would have one of the least expensive rights charges in the history of baseball.22

The development of television was slowed by World War II when precious materials and electronic assembly lines were needed for production of war equipment. But, after the war, "television fever" began to spread with the enthusiasm reminiscent of the "radio boom" of the 1920s.

Due to a shortage of television parts after the war, the first baseball telecasts were viewed in bars and other public places where the management could afford the limited number of expensive sets.23

By present day standards, the post-war telecasts were lackluster.

In fact, it was not unusual for the camera technicians to change camera lenses while the cameras were on the air. One group of cameramen had a twenty-dollar pool at the end of each week to be paid to the man who was caught flipping lenses the fewest times.24 Television viewers rarely complained about snowy pictures, crackling microphones, or flipped lenses. The novelty had not worn off. * 2

22Barber, p. 133. Barber, who was a part of that Reds-Dodgers telecast, described it in detail on pp. 131-35.

23Articles on the "tavern phenomenon" may be read in Colliers, 27 September 1947, p. 28 and Newsweek, 16 June 1947, p. 64.

24win iam 0. Johnson, Super Spectator and the Electric Lilliputians (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), p. 315. 10

By 1948, television set prices gradually decreased with the result that sales increased five times over those of the previous year.

The number of stations and cities served by television tripled in the same one-year period.25

Although the Federal Communications Commission placed a "freeze" on the licensing of new television stations between September 29, 1948 and June 1, 1952, the number of home sets during the period increased from 250,000 to 15,000,000.26

The attraction of the new medium reflected in the "sales boom" worried the baseball owners as radio had done twenty-five years before.

Adding impact to their concern were declining attendance figures.

Table 1 shows the attendance figures in the American and National leagues and the total number of television sets sold for each year of the

"television fever."

In addition to the problems at the major league level, attendance at minor league games was falling at an even greater rate. The minor leagues attributed this decrease to the saturation of minor league areas by the major league telecasts. Evidence introduced during a

Congressional hearing on the matter showed that between 1949 and 1957,

^Television Factbook No. 39, 1969-70 (Washington: Television Digest, Inc., 1969), pp. 70-a and 78-a, cited by Sidney Head, • Broadcasting in America, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 194.

^Dimensions of Television 1968-69 (Washington: The National Association of Broadcasters, 1970), p. 8, cited by Sidney Head, Broadcasting in America, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houohton Mifflin, 1972), p. 196. 11

TABLE 1

AMERICAN AND NATIONAL LEAGUE ATTENDANCE^ AND TELEVISION SET SALES, 1947-1975 (Eight teams In each league)

American League National League Set Sales Year Attendance Attendance in Units 1947 ...... 9,486,000 10,388,000 179,000

1948 ...... 11,151,000 9,771,000 970,000 1949 ...... 10,732,000 9,485,000 2,970,000 1950 ...... 9,131,000 8,321,000 7,355,000 1951 ...... 8,482,000 7,244,000 5,312,000

1952 ...... 8,295,000 6,342,000 6,194,000 1953 ...... 6,965,000 7,421,000 6,870,000

SOURCES: Red Book, National League Green Book, 1947-1953, cited by James Quirk, "Team Movements/ Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 38, no. 1 (Durham, : Duke University School of Law, 1973), pp. 51-52; Set sales figures compiled by the Electronics Industries Association, cited in Broadcasting Yearbook, 1971 edition, p. 19.

attendance in the minor leagues fell from 42 million to just over

15 million.27

Despite protests by the minor league teams—who were in danger

of dying off because of a lack of fan interest—the major leagues did not halt telecasting into minor league cities. To "black out" a

27See Allison Danzig and , The History of Baseball (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1$59), p. 129; Organized Professional Team Sports, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 85 Cong. 2 sess. (1958), p. 687, cited by Ira Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting," Government and the Sports Business, ed. Roger G. Noll (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1974), p. 284. (Noll's book contains a number of scholarly writings on the subject of sports and its legal implications such as anti-trust activity, interstate commerce, and on commercial broadcasting. 12

minor league city from a telecast might constitute a restraint of trade

against television stations and was likely to result in accompanying

Justice Department action. It was not until 1959 that bills were

introduced in Congress with "black out" clauses restricting major

league television. This was done "in an effort to the minors."28

While minor league parks emptied permanently in many cities,

major league broadcast revenues increased with each passing year.

In 1933, radio rights totaled a mere $18,000. By 1946, radio rights had

reached $838,000. With the addition of television rights, the figure

jumped to $3,365,000 in 1950.29 By 1960, individual franchises were collecting rights fees which totaled over $9 million. This figure

bulged to over $22 million in 1970 and to over $26 million in 1975.88

Television rights have become a critical financial consideration

for baseball clubs. In fact, James Quirk, Professor of Economics at

28üanzig and Reichler, p. 130.

29Sources include: Study of Monopoly Power, Pt. 6, Organized Baseball, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 82 Cong. 1 sess. (1952), pp. 968-70; Organized Professional Team Sports, Hearings before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 85 Cong. 1 sess. (1957), Pt. 1, pp. 354-59, and Pt. 2, pp. 2046-52; other data compiled from Broadcasting, Television Age, and Sponsor estimates and from published reports in the~New York Times. Above sources and figures through 1970 cited in Ira Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting," Government and the Sports Business, ed. Roger G. Noll (Washington: The Brookings InstÎ tuti on, 1974), p. 287.

30james Quirk, "An Economic Analysis of Team Movements in Professional Sports," Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 38, no. 1 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University School of Law, 1973), pp. 55-56. Mr. Quirk's figures were acquired from the following Broadcasting magazine issues: 14 March 1960, pp. 46-47; 9 February 1970, pp. 30-31; 3 March 1975, pp. 38-39; Figures are for local contracts only. 13

California Institute of Technology, claims that three of ten recent

franchise moves and, perhaps a fourth, were influenced by potential

television revenue.21

Broadcast rights have affected the profit-loss statement of many

baseball franchises.

In baseball, only one team would have shown a book profit in either 1952 or 1970, the first and last years for which relatively complete data are available, if broadcast revenues had been zero, and only four clubs would have been profitable without broadcasting in 1965.22

John Fetzer, who is president of the Tigers, a past

chairman of the baseball television committee, and president of several

television stations made the following statement about the Tigers and

television revenue:

'¿There would be no way—no way—to keep our name on the front door without television revenue. The cost of operating a franchise rises more rapidly than our ability to generate income. ... TV offers the wherewithal to keep going at all,^2

Despite the rising costs of broadcast rights and the knowledge

that charges to sponsors will usually be the cost of local rights,

advertisers have maintained a consistent loyalty. Ira Horowitz, who has

researched the sponsorship of baseball broadcasts, cites two primary

21 Ibid., p. 60. The three moves mentioned were: Washington to (1961), Milwaukee to (1966), and Kansas City to Oakland (1970). The possible fourth was St. Louis to Baltimore (1954).

32Qraanized Professional Team Sports, Hearings before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 85 Cong. 1 sess. (1957), p. 354; Forbes, 107,(1-April 1971): 30; and Wall Street Journal, 22 April 1966. Sources cited by Ira Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting," Government and the Sports Business, ed. Roger G. Noll (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1974), p. 287.

22Johnson, pp. 57-58. 14

reasons for this season-after-season loyalty on the part of advertisers:

First, it can enhance the advertiser's position in the industry to the detriment of those firms that do not have equally effective advertising programs. Second, it can erect a barrier to entry to the market, either locally or nationally. . . . [A few advertisers, thus, gain] monopoly control of a unique resource.84

Summary

In both radio and television, the unique relationship between the medium and baseball has evolved in four stages.

1. Technical development. During this period, although the medium was short of technical perfection, early sports broadcasts achieved popularity in proportion to the number of receiving sets available for use.

2. Fear by owners. Realizing the impact of the new medium, most baseball owners feared that the broadcast of games would harm attendance.

3. Financial importance realized. Most of the fearful owners were bought away from their defensive stance when stations and networks met the owners' demands for rights fees which increased periodically.

4. Acceptance. In addition to recognizing that the medium could supply considerable revenue for club operations, the baseball owners began to see the promotional value that broadcasts could bring.

Where high financial investments exist, there is always concern that the subject of the investment is successful. With the baseball

84Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting," pp. 315, 319. 15

broadcast, the person who would logically be a significant factor in

the presentation of the game is the play-by-play announcer.

The Play-by-Play Announcer: A Horse Pulling Three Carts'

The play-by-play announcer, especially the one whose assignment

involves the coverage of one team during an entire season, is placed

in the curious position of serving three factions which maintain an economic interest in the broadcasts.

The>dynamics of the inter-relationship between the three economic interests and the play-by-play announcer may be seen in

Figure 1.

As may be seen in Figure 1, the main objectives of the economic factions are: product sales for the advertiser, audience for the station, and maintenance of interest among fans for the baseball club. All of these goals are realized through the listening/viewing audience whose primary contact is the play-by-play announcer.

If the mechanisms of the baseball broadcasting process are operating smoothly, the advertiser will realize greater profits through increased sales, the station can show an advertiser that he can deliver a large audience for his sales message, and the baseball club will acquire more fans from the audience who will be willing to pay the price of admission at its home games.

It appears possible that the principal play-by-play announcer— the one handling the most, if not all, of the broadcast—might encounter occasional pressure in serving these economic masters. In 16

Figure 1. Inter-relationship between the baseball teams, broadcasting stations, advertisers, and play-by-play announcers. 17

fact, as will be shown in the next section of this text, there have been

documented occasions on which ball clubs have succeeded in persuading,

coercing, or otherwise influencing the content of the broadcasts.

This influence may be strongest from the faction which is

responsible for engaging the services of the play-by-play announcers.

Some major league announcers have been hired by the stations, others

by sponsors, and still others by the ball clubs they are covering.

With 821 radio stations and 150 television stations carrying the regular season broadcasts of individual major league teams in their respective area§ during the 1975 season,33 it would seem that more information should be acquired pertaining to the play-by-play announcers through whose efforts the goals of the multi-million dollar baseball broadcasting investments are realized.

Definitions

To facilitate a thorough understanding of the text, the terms essential to the study are defined below.

"Major league" refers to the American and National leagues as they have existed since before the inception of radio. This term is not necessarily synonymous with "Major League

Baseball," the copyrighted title encompassing the two leagues.

"Minor league" shall mean any baseball league in operation

(except for the American and National) which has member teams employing players under written contract for a salary.

A "franchise" will be defined for purposes of this study as any team holding membership in one of the two major leagues. 18

The title of "club owner" or "owner" refers to the person who

is sole holder of stock in a franchise, or, in the case of corporate

ownership, is the majority stockholder.

The "general manager" of a baseball team is the club official responsible for the overall administration of the franchise. Although

his duties vary from team to team, the general manager is usually

involved in hiring the field manager and coaching staff, negotiating contracts with players, supervising the operation of the team's minor league system for development of playing talent, and overseeing the club in its financial affairs.

The "field manager" is the person who is directly responsible for selecting the players who compete in each game, directing the strategy on the field, and making recommendations to the general manager on questions of policy or playing personnel.

"Network" means any link between two or more stations for the purpose of airing the same program. Networks may be "regional" (or covering two or more stations in the same geographic area) or "national"

(spanning the country).

The " station" is that broadcast facility which is responsible for originating the network broadcast and sending it to the other stations holding membership in the network.

The term "broadcast rights" shall mean the agreement which guarantees the privilege to broadcast an event or series of events.

This agreement is made between the franchise and the station (or, in some cases, the advertiser) in exchange for money or other consideration 19

The "principal announcer" is the member of a radio or television baseball broadcasting team who describes the most innings of play-by- play in a nine-inning game. It is usually the custom that the principal announcer broadcasts the opening innings of the games.

The "color man" usually broadcasts several innings of play-by- play during each game although his total number of innings is less than the total of the principal announcer. In most cases, the color man is responsible for analysis of the game during the times when the principal announcer is broadcasting the play-by-play.

A "local audience" is one receiving the regular broadcasts of the same team during the season. This audience is often geographically close to the city in which the team is based.

The "game description" of a baseball contest embodies not only the play-by-play, but also other verbiage (excepting commercials) aired from the beginning to the conclusion of a baseball game broadcast.

"Journalism" is defined as the compilation and distribution of information with attention to the qualities of independence, fairness, accuracy, honesty, and impartiality considered by authorities on the subject to be the tenets of that trade.

So that a fair assessment may be made on the body of knowledge pertaining to the occupation of the principal play-by-play baseball announcer broadcasting to local audiences, a review of available literature is presented in Chapter II. CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF LITERATURE

The field of literature pertaining to baseball broadcasting is

comprised of histories, memoirs, and references to the broadcasts in a

few scholarly studies. With a few exceptions, these books and articles are impressionistic volumes authored by sportswriters, historians, and

broadcasters.

Since much of the literature tends to focus on common subjects pertinent to baseball broadcasting, this survey will be presented in a topical organization.

Team Influence on the Game Description

Several published works have cited on-air taboos imposed on the play-by-play announcers by owners and other officials of the baseball clubs.

Whitfield and the Disclosure Announcement

Shelby Whitfield, the principal radio and television announcer for the Washington Senators during the 1969 and 1970 seasons, wrote a book of such controversy that it was credited with prompting an inquiry into sports broadcasting practices by the Federal Communications

Commission, the federal agency responsible for licensing and policing radio and television broadcasting stations in the . 21

The book, Kiss It Goodby,1 which dealt with Whitfield's experiences and observations during his two years with the Senators, included one chapter devoted to the control exercised on his broadcasts by his employer, Robert Short, owner of the team.

Whitfield claimed that Short would become angry if mention was made of the temperature or humidity if either was especially uncomfortable. In addition, Whitfield said that he was asked to lie about the weather forecasts for upcoming home games. In a conversation with Oscar Malamot, the Senators' public relations director, Whitfield pressed his argument further, saying,

"I've got to draw the line here. I've got a reputation to protect. You just can't expect me to go on and say the weather's going to be great when every forecaster in town, every newspaper, every radiò station and every TV station is calling for a monsoon 1" ’'No, you don't understand," Molomot said. "One of the first things you have to learn when you work for Short is learn to lie. 2. learned that a long time ago. "2

Whitfield stated that he was ordered not to broadcast scores involving teams of the rival National League, and was not to give out attendance figures when the crowd was defined by Short as small. In one incident, prompted by an attendance "leak" on Whitfield’s broadcast,

Short's wrath was especially vehement. In his book, Whitfield described the incident.

[The Senators], for some reason, always drew poorly on Saturday afternoons. The first week of May [1969] . . . [they] drew 12,728 for a Saturday afternoon game against a bad club.

1 Shelby Whitfield, Kiss It Goodby (New York: Abelard-Schuman Ltd., 1973).

2Ibid., p. 73. 22

During the eighth inning, . . . [it was] announced on the media intercom that this was a record Saturday afternoon crowd since the expansion Senators started operation nine years earlier. We duly reported this fact on the air, and Short raised hell. I had a message to call him after the game. "Look Whitfield. Don't ever say that a crowd of 12,728 is a good crowd." "Well, Bob," I said, "by comparative standards ..." "Look goddammit, I said it was a bad crowd! Don't say a thing about the crowd tomorrow if there aren't 25,000!"*3

With attendance being a problem for the Senators, Whitfield said

that pressure was placed on him to "build the house" by threatening the

listeners.

He [Short] wanted me to intimidate the Washington fans into coming out to the ballpark. "Tell those damn people in Washington that they had better get their asses out to the park or they won't have a club to watch." I'd balk. "Goddamn it," he'd continue. "I am telling you to say it, and if you don't, I'll get someone who will. I don't care what words you use or how you say it, but do it."4

Whitfield summarized his chapter on Short's influence with the contention that the baseball broadcaster "has to please the club, the

station, the advertising agency, the sponsor, the fan, and the press, not necessarily in that order. There's no way you can please all of them."5

Although some announcers interviewed prior to this study referred to Whitfield as a "character" and "one who was sour-graping it,"

Broadcasting magazine claimed that the serialization of these and other parts of his book in 1973 as a two-part series in the Washington

Star-News, resulted in an inquiry conducted by the Federal Communications

^Whitfield, pp. 74-75.

4Ibid., pp. 73-74.

3Ibid., p. 88. 23

Commission.6

The Commission decided to investigate the question of whether

stations were turning over the public interest to the private interest

of sports promoters and sponsors who allegedly were exerting influence

on both the hiring of the announcers and the description of the games.

Two provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, required that disclosure be made when a station employee received any type of consideration (pay, housing, transportation, or food, for example) in exchange for the broadcast of any material on the station.

The provisions'■read:

Any employee of a radio station who accepts or agrees to accept from any person (other than such station) or any person (other than such station) who pays or agrees to pay such employee, any money, service, or other valuable consideration for the broadcast of any matter over such station shall, in advance of such broadcast, disclose the fact of such acceptance or agreement to such station.7

And, "In any case where a report has been made to a radio station, ... an appropriate announcement shall be made by such radio station."*8

In June 1973, the Commission sent a letter of inquiry to radio and television stations and networks as well as several other sports organizations which might not otherwise be aware of business conducted

^Broadcasting, 18 June 1973, pp. 74-75.

?The Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, Public Law 416, Section 508 (a). (Although the section specifically mentions "radio stations," television stations are also regulated by its provisions.)

8Ibid., Section 317(b). z 24

by the Commission.9

Nearly one year later, the Commission reported that its findings

showed third-party hiring and payment of sports announcers by these

parties to be common and that appropriate announcements disclosing these

considerations had not been broadcast. The Commission added that

according a third party a voice in selection of sports personnel was

not an abdication of the responsibilities by the station. However, the

Commission made clear that "a disclosure requirement will prevent public

deception as to possible lack of objectivity based upon the private

interest of the announcer."I8

Accordingly, a disclosure announcement explaining third-party

considerations was required of stations where such agreements existed,

effective October 16, 1974.

The announcement was usually short in length and was aired

either before or after the broadcast. For example, the verbiage used in

the disclosure announcement following each Detroit Tiger radio broadcast during the 1975 season was as follows: "Ernie Harwell and Paul Carey

(the announcers) have been selected jointly by the and

WJR Radio to broadcast today's game."H

9The document sent by the Commission was Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 19773, released on June 26, 1973.

1OFCC 74-868, 18659, In the Matter of Practices of Licensees and Networks in Connection with Broadcasts of Sports Events, Docket No. 19773. Released August 9, 1974. Adopted July 31, 1974.

HWJR, "Detroit Tiger Baseball," 3 September 1975. 25

Shortly after the FCC decision requiring the disclosure announcement was made public, a pair of articles appeared in general readership magazines on the subject. Both were written by sportswriters who had previously published articles on sports broadcasting.

In J2 William Leggett, a senior writer for the magazine, labeled the disclosure announcement as "haphazardly effective."

Leggett's contention was that announcers paid by the teams were automatically labeled "shills" while other announcers who were paid by the stations were automatically considered to be free of outside influence.

[ Dodgers announcer] is indeed paid by the Dodgers, but he is also the best reporter covering any team in any sport for radio or TV. ’'I criticize bad play by the Dodgers and [Dodgers General Manager] Walter O'Malley never says a word," Scully says. ... [In football], Detroit Lion radiomen and . . . are often seen wearing team blazers. As things stand now, they will escape having to make a disclaimer because their livelihoods, at least theoretically, are controlled by the station/3

In an article published in TV Guide/4 sportswriter Melvin

Durslag termed the FCC requirement "a farce" for the reason that

. . . station-employed announcers are just as partial to the home teams as those hired by clubs. This is mainly because stations develop, for their own promotional advantage, a proprietary interest in the home team. They also feel compelled to play footsy with the club to perpetuate the profitable

12william Leggett, "Testing a Not So Golden Rule," Sports Illustrated, 30 September 1974, p. 59. * l

13lbid.

l4Melvin Durslag, "We Pause for a Confession from Our Announcer," TV Guide, 23 November 1974, pp. 39-40. 26

association.15

Both of the articles attributed the FCC inquiry to Whitfield's book and the subsequent serialization of it by the Washington Star-News

Durslag quoted Nelson King, the ' color man, as describing the disclosure announcement as "just another thing to say, like a litany. ... It doesn't change anything."185 16 *

Leggett asked for an opinion on the disclosure announcement from Whitfield's former employer, Robert Short. "It's just a political thing," Short replied. "If you're going to listen to a Shelby

Whitfield, what does it mean that there's a disclaimer at the end saying he's paid by Bob Short?1117

Asked about allegations made concerning his control of

Whitfield's broadcasts, Short replied . . .

"Whitfield would be giving out National League scores when we had the bases loaded and up with a 3-2 count. He said I directed him to tell people it wasn't raining when it was. Well, I wouldn't have done that, but I also know he wasn't being paid to be(|a weatherman. We were trying to sell tickets and beer. . . . 18

Barber and Owner Influence

Another book with references to owner influence on the game description was also written by a former principal announcer. In his

15Ibid., p. 40.

16Ibid.

^Leggett, "Testing a Not So Golden Rule," p. 59.

18Ibid. 27

book The Broadcasters, Walter "Red" Barber included memoirs of his

career in sports broadcasting.

In addition to serving as the play-by-play announcer for the

first professional baseball telecast in 1939, Barber was the principal

announcer for the Cincinnati Reds (1934-1938), the Brooklyn Dodgers

(1939-1953), and the (1954-1966).

Within the text of the memoirs was the description of two cases

of owner influence. Ironically, both of the incidents involved poor

attendance.

The first occurred in 1951 when Barber was doing a Brooklyn

Dodgers telecast. He wrote:

. . . [When] the attendance figures were sent to me . . . and the piece of paper had to pass through the club box, [General Manager] Walter [O'Malley] wrote on the paper, "Don't give the paid attendance—turn the camera on the empty seats, and tell the people to see for themselves how many empty seats there are."1 * I* g*a *ve the paid, and I told him after the game it was the wrong psychology to try to force or shame people into coming to the park. We differed. We were always guardedly pleasant, there was never a hard word, but we differed. I had dug in, and he was digging in.*9

Barber did not cite this incident as one of the important reasons for his departure from the Dodger broadcasts two seasons later.

Rather, he contended, it was his disagreements with the advertising agencies which handled the Dodger games and the World Series broadcasts on which prompted his resignation.

19Barber, p. 173.

20aithough the disputes between Barber and the two agencies— BBD&O and Maxon—did not take place because of influence on the game description, the interested reader may peruse Barber's account of the conflicts on pp. 178-90 of The Broadcasters. 28

The second incident occurred in 1966 while Barber was principal announcer for the New York Yankees. The team was nearing the end of a bad season, and, on a rainy, muddy Thursday afternoon in the final week of the year, the crowd at Yankee was especially small for a game between New York and the . Barber unfolded the story of an incident which took place just four days before he was fired from what would be his last principal announcing job in baseball.

Long before I signed on, I knew what the story would be: this was the smallest crowd, by far, in the entire history of the massive ball park built by , , and Colonel Jack Ruppert. . . . Any reporter would know what the story was, and it was a big story. . . . We took the air [for the telecast], and the first half of the first inning was played. During the following commercial, I . . . asked . . . for a picture of the empty stands when we came back on the air. ... It didn't take a smart fellow to know a pan of those empty seats would have high drama. . . . The bottom of the inning began, and no picture of the empty stands...... [Off mike between pitches], I said, "Tell [Director Don] Carney I want the shot. . . ."Carney wouldn't have told me I could not have a shot I asked for so strongly. [Announce booth assistant director Jimmy] Hunter said without hesitation, "Perry says you can't have the shot." Perry Smith, the vice president of radio and television for the Yankees, was in the control room. Whom he had consulted, I don't know, but he had consulted someone. . . . That settled that. With Smith standing over Carney's shoulder, there would be no way to get a camera shot of the empty stands. Then, like the drawing together of a curtain, the cameras cropped down on their pictures--only the infield and the were shown the rest of the game. No foul balls that went into the stands were followed in. Not a picture was taken showing the stands for that entire game. ... I knew I could not get the television picture, but I also knew they could not cut off the microphone fast enough to prevent me saying what I thought I should say . . . should say as a reporter . . . should say to the audience that trusted me . . . and should say before the newspapers said it. I leaned into the mike and said, '"I don't know what the paid attendance is today—but whatever it is, it is the 29

smallest crowd in the history of . . . . and this smallest crowd is the story not the ball game."21

The paid attendance was 413. It was probably the smallest crowd in the history of Yankee Stadium.

Four days later, in a meeting with Yankees* president Michael

Burke, Barber was informed that his contract would not be renewed.

Burke, in announcing the firing, told the press that the decision had been made approximately ten days prior to the Thursday broadcast.

Shortly after the firing, Jack Gould, television critic for the New York Times, described Barber as "a prisoner of the system" who

"had the gumption to acknowledge on the air that he was wearing handcuffs."22 Gould called for broadcasting stations to refrain from granting sports teams the control over announcers and their descriptions of the games.

Jack Mann, who authored a history of the Yankee ball club entitled The Decline and Fall of the New York Yankees,23 devoted a part of one chapter to the firing. He attributed the dismissal of

Barber to a change in ownership of the Yankees during that season.

There were reports, during the last of Red's 13 summers with the Yankees, that the image-changing bit was going to strike the broadcasting booth. Radio Daily said *one or two* of the Yankee broadcasting team of Barber, , Joe Garagiola and would be dropped...... At a time for the changing of the New York Yankees

21ßarber, pp. 215-18.

22jack Gould, "Red Barber: Foul Play at the Ball Park," New York Times, 9 October 1966, p. D21.

23Jack Mann, The Decline and Fall of the New York Yankees (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967). 30

"image“—a word which, to his everlasting credit, Michael Burke does not include in his vocabulary—the first public act of the new, climate-changing CBS administration was the climate-chilling business of firing Red Barber.24 * * *

Five years after the incident, in an article written on

Yankee broadcasters by reporter J. Anthony Lukas for the New York

Times Magazine^28 Burke stated that he fired Barber because . . .

[He] was giving us a terrible time in the broadcast booth, squabbling with Rizzuto, going out of his way to embarrass Garagiola on the air and make him look stupid. Moreover, he began to wander, parading his own erudition—his own insecurities—on the air.28

There wassome evidence that Barber and Garagiola differed.

In the same New York Times Magazine article, Barber admitted frustration with Garagiola's constant on-the-air interruptions. "It was the first time that I had sat in a radio booth with a fellow who moved in on my broadcast," said Barber. "I couldn't finish what I was saying."2?

Barber's disgust with Garagiola's broadcasting was also reflected in the following excerpt from The Broadcasters:

[During the 1964 Series broadcast], Garagiola kept interrupting Rizzuto on the air, cutting in on him, taking the mike away from him. It was as though Rizzuto wasn't good enough to

24Mann, pp. 213, 221.

25j. Anthony Lukas, "How Started a Lifelong Affair," New York Times Magazine, 12 September 1971, pp. 38-39, 72-88.

26ibid., p. 82.

27ibid. 31

detail a routine pla.y--Garagiola had to explain it or make a wisecrack. . . .28

Regardless of cause-effect, the attention drawn to the incident ranked second only,to the stir created by Whitfield's book.

Varying Degrees of Team Influence

A Sports Illustrated article entitled, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . ..,"29 written by Jerry Kirshenbaum, an associate editor of the magazine, focused on the differences in restraints placed on announcers from club to club. Kirshenbaum wrote:

[The] , for example, [claim] ... to give their announcers a completely free hand ("Boosting the club is not expected of them--they just do it," says Broadcasting Director Jim Faszholz enigmatically), while the Cincinnati Reds exDect their announcers to refrain from saying anything negative about the team. Another that makes no pretense of objectivity is the Phillies organization, which wants its telecasters, Vice- President says, "To make us look as good as possible."30

Pittsburgh Pirates announcer admitted that he is inclined to wander into subjects far afield from baseball, a tendency that prompts Pirate General Manager Joe Brown to closely the broadcasts. Said Prince, "My key is rambling, but I was told not to talk about West Virginia and Penn State football."3^

Kirshenbaum related one occasion when Prince knew he was not

28Barber, p. 209.

2°Jerry Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . . Sports Illustrated, 30 August 1971, pp. 32-43.

30ibid., p. 38.

31NBC-TV, "Tomorrow," 11 December 1975. 32

to talk about the game on the field.

Richie Hebner, the Pirate infielder, had tossed his bat in anger into the stands in Houston. It was the kind of incident the club prefers to have Prince ignore, but the audible boos of the crowd made this impossible. "Fans," Prince said, "something has happened here but I'm not going to be able to tell you about it."32

Although Whitfield and Barber both cited specific instances in which they were subjected to team influence, these alone did not display a trend within the occupation of baseball announcing. In fact, since Barber did not report team influence during his five seasons with the Cincinnati Reds, there probably was variation in the degree of influence from team to team and situation to situation.

Although he cited only three examples, Kirshenbaum suggested that variation was common.

The Announcer and Team Promotion

In his book All About Baseball,2* 2 sportswriter focused on the differences between baseball announcers and baseball writers. Among his conclusions was that, because baseball announcers were often employed by the ball teams they were describing, they were salesmen first and reporters second. A part of this selling, Koppett contended, was the reading of frequent promotional announcements for the ball club--announcements which, he hinted, may have been given by the announcers to avoid harrassment.

22Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . . p. 43.

22Leonard Koppett, All About Baseball (New York: Quadrangle, The New York Times Book Company, 1974). 33

More numerous than product commercials [on the broadcasts] are house announcements for the ball club. Most general managers insist that the broadcasters repeat, at frequent intervals each day, the "upcoming" schedule, the special promotion days, and the location of ticket offices. Some general managers, in fact..harass their broadcasters on this point beyond belief. 4

In another of his articles on sports broadcasting,88 Leggett

interviewed , an announcer during twenty-three seasons

(1953-1975) for six major league clubs.

Woods claimed that, while working for the New York Yankees

in the 1950s, both he and principal announcer Mel Allen were frequently coached during the broadcasts by the Yankee front office. According to Woods, ", the general manager, had a hot line into the booth." Weiss would monitor the broadcasts and would phone during the games to make such comments as "too much levity in the booth" or "you aren't promoting the forthcoming White

Sox series enough."36

Kirshenbaum contended that the announcers were really pitchmen whose wares were not exclusively baseball tickets.

[They are involved with] hawking illustrated team yearbooks, plugging bat days and T shirt giveaways and reminding anybody who might be inclined to drag himself out to the airport of the team's imminent return from a road trip at 3 a.m. They are also expected to sell the sponsor's beer and the ball club's tickets. If you seldom hear TV announcers urge motorists to "come on out for the second game," which used to be a standing invitation for radio listeners, it is only because they know that not many people are watching TV while driving * 86

34ibid., p. 212.

35william Leggett, "No Knock on Woods in Boston," Sports Illustrated, 25 August 1975, p. 35.

86Ibid. 34

around in their cars. Patient pitchmen that they are. they want you in the tent, but tomorrow will be just fine.2?

Kirshenbaum was supported by writer Stanley Frank who

stated in an article published in TV Guide, "there is a sprinkling

of reliable men around the country [who broadcast sports], but the

majority are hucksters for the teams they follow. . . . "2* 8

Frank added that employment longevity was directly related

to the sales aspect of baseball broadcasting, a practice he and other

critics termed "shilling." "An announcer who fails to shill for the

home team," Frank wrote, "has ample leisure to reflect on the high

price of integrity."29

In support of his contention, Frank quoted of

ABC-TV Sports, an announcer generally recognized for being outspoken

and controversial. "Announcers shouldn't be blamed for the low, mealy-mouthed quality of their work," Cosell stated. "They've got

to be pitchmen to hold jobs."40

In a book entitled The Jocks,41 billed on its cover as "the

book that takes the halo off sports heroes," the former Look magazine

sports editor Leonard Shecter wrote of newspaper and broadcast

2?Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . . ," p. 35.

28Stanley Frank, "Play Ball," TV Guide, 17 January 1970, p. 7

29Ibid, p. 6.

40ibid, p. 7.

41 Leonard Shecter, The Jocks (Mew York: Paperback Library, 1970) 35

station co-operation with owners in squelching controversy and in

promoting the positive side of the local team. Writers and

announcers who were co-operative Shecter called "house men."

Included in his chapter which dealt with sports broadcasting, he

quoted announcer Garagiola as saying, "I'm a house man. That's what

they're paying me to be."42 43

One veteran play-by-play announcer, interviewed prior to this

study, had a similar response to the question of announcers promoting

upcoming games and ticket locations. "I consider plugging tickets

as part of the job," he said. "Sure, it promotes the club, but it does give news to people."42

Veteran announcer , who has broadcast games of the

St. Louis Cardinals, Oakland A's, and Chicago White Sox, held a contract with Chicago that paid him for bringing fans into the park.

"The White Sox had a total attendance of 495,000 the year before I came," he told a national television audience. "I had an agreement whereby I received $10,000 for every 100,000 fans above the 500,000 mark."44

The literature suggested that baseball broadcasters were

salesmen for the teams in that they used the airwaves to promote home attendance, sell club souvenirs, and perform other services to the benefit of the team.

42Ibid., p. 94.

43Interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974. (All announcers interviewed prior to the study were assured anonymity).

44NBC-TV, "Tomorrow," 11 December 1975. 36

There was no indication from a representative sample of

announcers as to whether such promotion was a part of their

responsibility, whether they felt they had control over home

attendance through their broadcasts, and, if so, what techniques

they used.

The Announcer as Critic

Koppett suggested that the baseball broadcaster could not

include in his game description items which may be critical of the

team or management.

The announcer may--and usually does—describe the event in front of him with complete accuracy of detail; but beyond that, comment and value judgments are needed, and it is simply impossible for a broadcaster to go on expressing opinions that his employer objects to.48

Broadcasting critic Richard L. Tobin, in Saturday Review,

suggested that, to be critical was not the announcer's province.

Tobin added that announcers who whereon the payroll of the ball club

dared not be critical of their employers for fear of not being rehired

for the following season.4* ®

Lukas' article on announcing forwarded the opinion that "there

is little prospect that there is little prospect that any announcer will be told to report baseball the way a reporter covers City Hall or

even the way a drama critic reviews a play."4?

48Koppett, pp. 209-210.

^Richard L. Tobin, "The Television Sports Hoax," Saturday Review, 8 October 1966, pp. 109-110.

4?J. Anthony Lukas, "How Mel Allen Started a Lifelong Love Affair," p. 88. 37

Author Martin Mayer, who authored studies on education, advertising, banking, the law profession, and the stock market, completed a reportorial book on the television industry in 1972.48

In discussing the role of the play-by-play announcer as journalist, he concluded that

. . . clearly, sports reporters should have the right to tell the public on news and comment shows what they have learned about any game, without worrying that they will jeopardize their jobs as announcers. But confusing the role of the "sportscaster" with the role of the "journalist" is in practice not only unwise but impossible.49

Major league baseball play-by-play announcers have been accused of avoiding bona fide news events. Kirshenbaum noted that

"Babies have been born in the stands during baseball games and people shot" without broadcast audiences being made aware of it.5* 0 *

Frank accused announcers of ignoring team dissension or other troubles within the ranks of the ball club. He wrote: "When there is internal dissension on a team, TV sweeps the story under the rug until newspapers force it to acknowledge that there is trouble in paradise."81

40Martin Mayer, About Television (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). Other studies include: Wall Street: Men and Money (New York: Harper and Row, 1955); Madison Avenue, U. S. Ä.: (New York: Harper and Row, 1958); The Schools (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1963); The Lawyers (New York: Harper and Row, 1967); and The Bankers (New York: Weybright and Talley, 1974).

49ibid., About Television, p. 174.

50Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . . ," p. 35.

81 Frank, "Play Ball," p. 9. 38

Broadcasters have also been accused of avoiding criticism of

players and managers. Kirshenbaum observed that

The need to incessantly promote the club inevitably affects coverage of the game itself, this at a time of widespread debate over television's performance in reporting the news.... The telecasters are notorious for crimes of omission, for avoiding saying anything that hints of criticism, . . . Yankee Announcer Phil Rizzuto is one of the few who occasionally offer even gentle criticism, as when he takes note of Horace Clarke's erratic fielding, but the exercise obviously pains him. "I try not to overdo it," Rizzuto says. "I played baseball and I know that errors are a part of the game."52

St. Louis Cardinals' announcer explained that

"You can't always say what you're thinking because you want to keep your contacts."52 *

Control of Announcers in Other Sports

There was evidence that baseball announcers were not the only occupational group whose description of games may be affected by third parties and/or sports teams. In his book They Call It a Game,54 former professional football player Bernie Parrish included a brief discussion on the relationship between announcers and the teams they covered. From a players' standpoint, Parrish wrote, the announcers were a part of the football "establishment."

52Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play," p. 38.

52Ibid., p. 35.

54Bernie Parrish, They Call It a Game (New York: The Dial Press, 1971). 39

All play-by-play TV and radio announcers are approved not only by club management but by [ Commissioner Pete] Rozelle himself. There is no question as to which side of the bread their butter is on. The major sports announcers cannot afford to do anything but patronize the owners' interests on every significant issue, while often discrediting and discouraging players opposing the league.88

Gerald Eskenazi, a hockey writer for the New York Times, wrote a book entitled A Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Hockey5* ® in which

he included a statement about hockey's play-by-play announcers and

their objectivity in reporting the games.

It was his conclusion that it was impossible to expect an announcer to be a crusader. He wrote:

So if you want controversy when listening or watching your favorite team, you can probably forget it. No announcer is going to take up a campaign to fire the , or trade away a certain player. And some announcers can rationalize this quite well: "Look, I'm being paid to report the games," said one personality, who has handled the network game-of-the-week telecast, as well as done extensive broadcasting for one team. "It would be silly for me to think the club hired me as a crusader. I think I can still be honest in the framework I've selected. If you want truly harsh judgments, or second-guessing, then you go to your newspaper. Who would I be fooling if I became a hard-nosed announcer? I'd be out of a job soon, and what good would it all do? I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face.8?

\ Partiality

Although no study has been conducted into the percentage of major league announcers openly cheering for the teams they covered,

88Parrish, p. 119.

58Gerald Eskenazi, A Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Hockey (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972).

5?Ibid., p. 151. 40

published information indicated that it was a practice among some

and not among others.

Partisanship was not exclusively the trademark of the 1970s.

In Frank's TV Guide article "Play Ball," Gordon Bridge, a former

employee of Armed Forces Radio, and, thus responsible for relaying

games from all over the country to military bases, told of a famous

Chicago announcer's pet phrase.

. . . The late Bert Wilson, who broadcast Cub games on radio [during the 1930s and 40s], always said in the seventh inning, "I don't care who wins as long as it's the Cubs." When he pulled his trademark, the fans carried on as though he was the wittiest guy since .58

Bridges added, "There always have been notorious 'homers' doing baseball in Chicago, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh."59 * (A "homer" was the name given to an announcer who cheered for the home team.

In this context, "home team" referred to the team he covered on a day-to-day basis.)

In a TV Guide article entitled "I Don't Care Who Wins, as

Long as We Do," sportswriter Melvin Durslag labeled Pittsburgh Pirates announcer Bob Prince as "the Prince of Homers."50 Durslag wrote:

According to Prince, homers are partial on the air for a reason that is spectacularly logical. "The great majority of their listeners—like maybe 98 per cent--don't want down-the-middle broadcasting," he says. "My fans, for instance, are for the Pirates--and they want me to be for the

58Frank, "Play Ball," p. 8.

59Ibid.

5°Melvin Durslag, "I Don't Care Who Wins, as Long as We Do," TV Guide, 17 May 1975, op. 21-23. 41

the Pirates. All they ask is that I don't say one of our batters a line drive when it was a pop fly."61

Durslag cited some direct quotes from Prince's broadcasts.

. . . When an opposing batter belts a home , Bob usually groans, "We're hurtin' big. Call a doctor." And when of the Cardinals was caught stealing by the Pirates last year, Prince gloated to his listeners, "Well, we got Old Folks this time."621

According to Durslag, Prince made little pretense of being

a journalist.

Prince maintains that most of the criticism of homers comes from those who don't understand their place in the journalistic picture. "We are not journalists as such," says Bob. "We are part-reporter and part-entertainer. We are there to make our rooters happy--and the other team’s rooters mad."63 64 *

Prince was one of several announcers, about whom a series

of four copyrighted articles were written by , a sports for . Addie recalled:

... It was during the 1971 march to the pennant that the announcer wielded "the ," which was a pox, a hex on the opposing team. Prince invoked the Green Weenie all season and it worked—right through to the World Series which the Pirates won over Baltimore, four games to three...... "I don't know whatall this breast-beating is about a 'homer,'" he said. "Who do I broadcast for, the Turnpike? If I did, I'd tell you about the charm of the toll booths. No, I broadcast for the Pirates and my audience roots for the Pirates. I always call them 'Our Bucs.' They belong to Pittsburgh and I love them."6^

61 Ibid., p. 23.

62Ibid.

63lbid.

64Excerpt from fourth article in a four-part series written by Bob Addie of the Washington Post published in a number of newspapers during July of 1975. (Several other anecdotes pertaining to Prince may be found in , Broken Ci gars [Engl ewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968], pp. 167-76.) 42

Not all of the announcers' opinions on broadcasting were so colorful as Prince's and, thus, did not reach print. But, one of

his colleagues, ' announcer Vin Scully, in the same

Washington Post series, eschewed the role of "homer." J /

"I think basically I always have had to convince the listener of honesty and integrity," Scully said. "When I came out to California with the Dodgers in 1958, I knew I had to be honest with an entirely new audience--not the wonderful, loyal, uncompromising fans of Brooklyn. If people think you're a homer, you are slightly dishonest; you're seeing things with your heart, not your eyes. I am not emotionally equipped to be a homer and do a good job. I have to be an honest factual reporter."®5

Jack Craig, the radio and television columnist for The

Sporting News, made reference to partisanship in one of his columns.

He asked, "What share of local fans are ready for truly objective reporting, presuming there is such a thing? He contended that the partiality of an announcer may be a way of shielding a lack of ability.

Rooting interest by many announcers also is a marvelous excuse for absence of talent. The fellow who is safe for a team when the crunch comes is more likely to have his broadcast shortcomings overlooked.®®

Craig concluded that "the easiest way to cure bias is to hire topflight announcers because talent inspires independence."®?

Barber was sharply critical of partisanship. In a section of his book, The Broadcasters, he offered the following philosophy to * 67

65ibid.

66jack Craig, "SporTView," The Sporting News, 6 April 1974, p. 58.

67 ibid. 43

aspiring announcers:

To care, to root, to anguish, to rejoice—these are the rights of the fan. They are not the rights of the professional announcer, any more than they are of the who rules safe or out . . . ball or strike.58

To assure this lack of bias, Barber said that it was necessary to regulate aspects of both his professional and personal life.

To be fair to all the players, to be able to report them for what they do, I always believed it a mistake to be personally close to any of them. I felt I should be on good, friendly, working terms with them all—speak to them all, be interested in them and their work, but no more interested in one of them than in another. I never visited in a ballplayer's house, nor had a ball­ player come to my house. I was very careful never to ask a favor of a player. My wife sat in the stands close to where the players' wives sat—she was happy to have short visits with them—but she sat with her own friends, or she sat alone.59

Another veteran play-by-play announcer, , who has broadcasted the play-by-play of such major league teams as Cleveland,

Boston, and Cincinnati, discussed the subject of partisanship in a book entitled So You Want to Be a Sportscaster.7* 0 He contended:

Some announcers are out-and-out "homers." They root for the home team. in Chicago has been heard to say, with for the Cubs, "Come on, Ronnie, let’s get a hold of one." Bob Prince, the voice of the Pirates, will say when the game is over, "We had 'em all the way." Others will be more objective. Ernie Harwell in Detroit works right down the middle on the broadcasts. They are all pros and are all good at it, but they are different...... I have always taken the position that the job of

5°Barber, p. 234.

59Ibid.

70Ken Coleman, So You Want to Be a Sportscaster (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1973). 44

the play-by-play man is to report the action on the field. He is not hired to manage, to second-guess, or to comment on the validity of the moves. He should give credit where it is due on both sides. It is inevitable in baseball reporting, when you cover one team all season long, that your personal feelings will come to the surface occasionally. A fellow would have to be a pretty cold fish to live and work with a team, to get to know the executives, the manager, . the coaches, and the players and not want to see them win.

Another veteran announcer, Mel Allen, in his book of sports stories entitled You Can't Beat the Hours,?2 devoted a chapter to his opinions on sports announcing. On the subject of partiality, he admitted:

The big rap hung on me, of course, is that I root for the Yankees in my broadcasts. My honest answer to this one, which I sometimes think I have to give a couple of hundred times a week, is that I am partisan but not prejudiced. Partisanship, I think, is all right. It gives color and excitement to a broadcast, and it makes the hometown fans happy. Prejudice would be unpardonable and I hope never to be guilty of it.?3

Whitfield made one brief reference to partisanship. Recalling his experience as announcer for the Washington Senators' games, he theorized that the city covered was a factor in partisanship.

Washington was a one-baseball-team town, and I saw nothing wrong with a little rooting for the home town. This didn't set too well with some critics and fans in a town as sophisticated as Washington. But this is a point that has been argued for decades.?4

Another defender of the partisan approach was former baseball

?1Ibid., pp. 27-28, 30.

72Mel Allen with Ed Fitzgerald, You Can't Beat the Hours (New York: Harper and Row, 1964).

?3Ibid., p. 11.

74Whitfield, p. 77. 45

commissioner Ford C. Frick who wrote:

Whether or not broadcasters should permit their emotions to show in their daily baseball stint has ever been a moot question. It still is. Personally, I like it. On the daily local broadcasts, some 90 per cent of the listeners are home club fans, who enjoy a bit of partisanship in their game descriptions. They like announcer enthusiasm when the home club is winning, or a bit of sympathetic disappointment in hours of defeat. When it comes to a network broadcast with national coverage, neutrality is demanded. But on the local level, it seems to me, rooting interest is an important part of the descriptive picture.?5

Frick spoke with authority on matters of broadcasting. Prior to his assuming the presidency of the National League (1935-1951) and before his stint as (1952-1966), he was a sportswriter for the New York American and play-by-play announcer for the Brooklyn Dodgers over WOR, New York.

Koppett, claimed that the charge that broadcasters rooted for the home team was not justifiable. Like Whitfield, he held a theory that partisanship varied with the city.

... It is true that in some cities, it is the conscious policy to have the broadcaster throw in "let's go gang's" and "we win's" and other provincially chauvinistic remarks—but so do writers in some towns. As a general rule, the less metropolitan (or perhaps cosmopolitan) a city is, the more likely rooting will be widely practiced—by newspapermen and broadcasters alike. So even in this little corner of thé ’.i baseball world, we find a minor myth flourishing unchallenged.?6

Prior to this study, two principal announcers were asked to express their views on partisanship. Again, there was a difference in opinion. 7

75Frick, pp. 107-8.

?6Koppett, p. 211. 46

(Announcer No. 1). I would guess that the audience is about 60-40 in favor of the guy who roots for the home team. The trouble with rooting is its great if you have a winning team. But if you lose, you look ridiculous. Plus, you've got to alibi for the team.77

(Announcer No. 2). I could never understand the criticism of announcers for "pulling" for the home team. If I'm with the White Sox, the idea of losing four games to New York doesn't quite appeal to me. There isn't an announcer in the country that I can't listen to and not tell you who's ahead. Sometimes, I can even tell by how many runs the opposition is leading.72

Clearly there was a division among announcers and authors on the advisability of displaying partisanship. While Barber and Scully advocated a policy of neutrality, Allen and Prince voiced the opposite opinion. Former Commissioner and announcer Frick supported partisanship as a broadcast tool, writer Craig condemned it, and another announcer, Coleman, said that it was inevitable from time to time. Even a pair of announcers chosen at random prior to this study, had differing views.

Summary

It has been shown in this section that announcers have been portrayed in the literature as salesmen where they have promoted home game ticket sales and other projects initiated by the ball clubs they have covered. This tendency was also reflected in literature from other sports. When combined with the tendency of some announcers to display partiality, the capacity for objective reporting has been

77Interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974.

78interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 47

questioned with the general consensus among the writers on the subject

that play-by-play announcers would have difficulty in following the

dictates of journalism.

Journalistic Tenets

According to F. Fraser Boyd's Introduction to Journal ism,?9

there were five laws of reporting. These tenets, which were compatible

with the writing of other authorities on the subject8* 9 included:

independence, accuracy, honesty, fairness, and impartiality.8!

Independence

There was some question concerning the ability of an announcer

to maintain independence when—in the cases of Whitfield, Barber, and

some others—he was handed instructions, threats, and censure by the

club owners or other outside parties. Obviously, independence was

jeopardized in cases where the kind of pressure brought to bear on the announcer resulted in alteration of content. But, the extent of this

interference within the occupation was not known. Some announcers

have been vocal in their complaint of outside influence while others

indicated they had not been subjected to interference. Further study was needed to better evaluate the overall independence of this

?9F. Fraser Boyd, Introduction to Journalism (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1961).

89Among other authorities consulted were: Francis Williams, Dangerous Estate (New York: MacMillan and Company, 1958); Laurence R. Campbell and Roland E. Wolseley, Newsmen at Work (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Riverside Press, 1949); and, Robert M. Neal, News Gathering and News Writing (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1942).

81 Boyd, pp. 3-5. 48

occupational group.

Accuracy, Honesty

This did not appear to be an important concern. Not only

have announcers broadcasted to a number of fans in attendance at the

games who could determine his accuracy, but, even the radio

broadcaster describing an away game has been impeded from consistently

misrepresenting on-field activities due to the fact that: 1) telecasts

have been beamed back to his city, 2) the opposition team's broadcast

may have reached his city, and 3) the reports of sportswriters

traveling with the team have been available to his listeners as well.

Of more importance has been the honesty of the announcer

through his accuracy and the application of the resulting credibility

in cases where he has been involved with persuasion. As announcer

Caray contended in a discussion on the subject before a national

television audience, "You don't fool the people. You can't fool 'em.

Without honesty, I can't sell the product. Without a product, there's

no broadcast."82

Fairness

Related to independence was the question of fairness in

reporting hard news items. In the preceding section, discussion was

presented on the alleged reluctance of announcers to cover such items as controversial trades, poor attendance, and actions by player groups

This group may have been dependent on club owners and other

82NBC-TV, "Tomorrow," 11 December 1975. 49

parties to an extent that they have had a need for certain taboos.

These taboos might have included occurrences or statistics which might embarrass the team. A statement about overall fairness could be more accurately presented upon evaluating the independence of the group.

Impartiality

Announcers Prince and Wilson have not pretended impartiality.

Yet others, like Scully and Barber, asserted that partiality was a betrayal of the listener. Thus, there were different philosophies at work in this occupation. Although longevity in the field has been achieved by proponents of both points of view, it was not possible to determine from the literature what percentage of the members of this occupational group demonstrated partiality. Nor was it known whether Prince's assessment of his audience as "Pirate fans" was necessarily the audience perception of all. Further study was required of these points of inquiry.

Background of Announcers

Many baseball play-by-play announcers mentioned in the literature began broadcasting in small cities or on college campuses.

There were also others with diversified occupational backgrounds as well as others who came directly from the playing ranks. Although information was limited, Coleman's book focused on the backgrounds of a number of contemporary announcers. Several other books afforded sketchy information on individual broadcasters. 50

Training in Small Cities

Arch McDonald, who broadcasted the Washington Senators games

for twenty-two seasons, began in Chattanooga announcing minor league

games. Before he got into baseball, he worked as a delivery boy for

a butcher, a harvest hand, a peanut vendor in a ball park, a

patent-medicing salesman, and a boxing referee.83

Curt Gowdy, formerly the play-by-play announcer for the Boston

Red Sox, began in Cheyenne, . After a year, he was assigned

to broadcast the University of Oklahoma football games. His "break"

came when he was assigned to air the Oklahoma-Texas Christian game

on CBS. According to Coleman,

His work on that game gained him national attention, and soon after he was hired by the New York Yankees as the number two man to Mel Allen. A few years later he became the Red Sox play-by-play specialist, and in 1966 he left for a network job.84

Ray Scott, television announcer for the ,

began at a small radio station in his hometown of Johnstown,

Pennsylvania in 1937 at a salary of fifty-five dollars per month.

Like Gowdy, he got an important opportunity to further his career

on a single football broadcast. In 1956, he was assigned to do the

Sugar Bowl game on CBS-TV with Bill Stern, then one of the top announcers in the business.

Stern became ill at the start of the game and Scott had to do all the announcing. His fine job won for him the

83Barber, pp. 105-7.

84Coleman, p. 124. 51

Green Bay Packers assignment over CBS television that same season.85 * *

Jack Brickhouse, broadcaster for the , began in

Peoria, Illinois after entering a contest sponsored by a local radio station. He was hired despite losing the contest.

Bob Prince of the Pittsburgh Pirates answered a newspaper ad looking for a sportscaster. He took the job which required him to do a fifteen-minute sports report each day for $7.50 per week.8® Pirate owners were impressed with the following he had for his program and brought him onto the Pirate games to provide the color for principal announcer Rosey Rosewell. Following Rosewell's death, Prince took over as principal announcer, a position he held through the 1975 season.87

Merle Harmon () and A1 Michaels (San

Francisco Giants) both began by broadcasting minor league games.

Another announcer who got his start in the minors was Don Wells

(California Angels) who moved through the ranks in the same fashion as a ballplayer might, moving from Salinas, California to Wichita,

Dallas, eventually to Chicago, and finally to California.88

Jim Woods ( and five other major league teams) quit the University of to cover local sports on a 100-watt

85ibid., p. 126.

86ibid., p. 130.

87Myron Cope, Broken Cigars (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), pp. 171-72.

88coleman, pp. 127, 130, 133. 52

station in Mason City, Iowa. A magazine article on Woods recalled that two years after moving to Mason City, he gained experience doing football games.

... He began announcing University of Iowa football games, when a young sportscaster named left that job to sign a Hollywood contract. . . . In 1948 Woods benefited from what may well have been baseball's most bizarre trade. was running the Dodgers then, and when [Red] Barber was taken ill, Rickey phoned Earl Mann, the president of the . Rickey wanted to hire Announcer Ernie Harwell to replace Barber. Mann and Rickey struck an agreement that sent Cliff Dapper to the Crackers for Harwell. Woods, sort of the sportscaster-to-be-named-later in the deal, moved into Harwell's job. When the Crackers sold their TV rights for $100,000 the next year, he [Woods] became the first announcer to do an entire home season of play-by-play on television.89

Harwell began a career in sports as a correspondent for The

Sporting News at fifteen years of age. He moved into broadcasting in

1940 at WSB in Atlanta and, following World War II, began calling the Atlanta Crackers games. The trade which brought Woods from

Iowa to Atlanta and vaulted Harwell from Atlanta to Brooklyn, was the start of a career which carried him from Brooklyn to the New

York Giants, from the Giants to Baltimore, and from Baltimore to

Detroit.

Training in Colleges and Universities

Several play-by-play announcers acquired experience using the facilities provided by colleges and universities.

Red Barber read a ten-minute paper on the campus station at

89Leggett, "No Knock on Woods in Boston," p. 35. 53

the University of . He described it as "an accidental, casual,

one-time thing--for the fee of a free meal that evening."50 From that,

he began announcing on the local commercial station in the city, and

eventually went to Cincinnati where he began baseball broadcasting and

a career which lasted thirty-three years.

Mel Allen got his start doing the public address announcements

for University of football games while a student there. In

1935, Frank Thomas, the coach of the Crimson Tide, was asked by a

Birmingham radio station to nominate someone to broadcast both the

Auburn and Alabama games that season. Thomas selected Allen who worked

for five dollars a game. From there, Allen went to , but

not with the intention of broadcasting sports. In his book, Allen described the chance visit he had with a CBS official.

I was on a vacation trip to New York during the week before Christmas, 1936, a reasonably footloose young man with a law degree in his pocket but not much else, when I stopped in to take a tour of the Columbia Broadcasting Studios. I told one of the men I met there that I had done some play-by-play broadcasting for the CBS station in Birmingham, and he seemed interested. He even invited me to audition, so they could see what I sounded like. I thought it would be an interesting experience, so I did it. I didn't expect anything to come of it, and I was completely taken by surprise when they ended up offering me a job.9'

The result of that CBS tour was the beginning of a career which

included his being "the voice of the Yankees" for nineteen seasons.

Lindsey Nelson, principal announcer for the , began sports broadcasting while he attended the University of * 51

50Barber, p. 16.

51 Allen, p. 5. 54

Tennessee. His first job was calling the play-by-play of the school's

football games. In 1951, he was hired by the Liberty Broadcasting

chain to air both baseball and football. The following year, he

began a decade with NBC-TV. In 1962, he joined the newly-created New

York Mets and has been with them since.-92 93

Shelby Whitfield studied radio and television at the

University of Texas. From there, he worked at several commercial

stations in the Southwest where he did both live and re-created minor

league games. He was a civilian employee for the Department of

Defense in Washington when he learned of the vacancy with the

Washington Senators. He applied, got the job, broadcasted the

Senators' games for two seasons, and eventually became the sports director for the Associated Press Radio Network in Washington.92

Vin Scully of the Los Angeles Dodgers began broadcasting while a student at . He worked as a staff announcer at

WTOP in Washington, D.C. during the late 1940s and filed some reports on Red Barber's CBS Football Roundup in 1949. Impressed with Scully's work, Barber brought him to Brooklyn as the "third man" with Barber and for the 1950 season. He has been with the Dodgers ever since.94

Although (California Angels) got his first chance at broadcasting as the janitor of a station in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan,

92Coleman, p. 125.

93Whitfield, p. 2.

94Coleman, pp. 124-25; Barber, p. 187. 55

his first opportunity to broadcast sports came while working for his

master's degree at Indiana University. He was one of two baseball

broadcasters to have earned a and, more recently, hosted a

syndicated television quiz program called "."95 *

Diverse Backgrounds

Ty Tyson, who broadcasted the Detroit Tigers' games from 1927

through 1940, began his broadcasting career with a large city station

WWJ in Detroit. He announced what is credited to be the first

broadcast in the Midwest when he did the Wisconsin-Michigan football

game in Ann Arbor in 1924.95

A foreman at Westinghouse in Pittsburgh, Harold Arlin,

broadcasted the first Pittsburgh Pirates radio game description in

1921.97

Hal Totten, the first man to do regular play-by-play

broadcasts of one team (Chicago Cubs, 1924), was a rewrite man for

the Chicago Daily News.98

More recently, sportswriter Harry Jones made the transition from baseball writing to baseball broadcasting in Cleveland.

[He] was once a writer with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, covering the Indians games. He'd never done any radio or

95Coleman, p. 133.

95Barber, p. 104.

97Lawrence W. Lichty and Malachi C. Topping, American Broadcasting: A Source Book on the and TV (New York: Hastings House, 1975), p. 108.

98Barber, p. 89. 56

television work, but when TV became a bigger factor in major league baseball, Jones got into the picture. He's been the telecaster for Indians games for many years, . . .59

Former Players

Jack Graney was the first play-by-play announcer in the major

leagues to have come from the playing ranks. In 1932, he began broadcasting the games played by the .199

Among the more famous players to enjoy lengthy periods of employment as principal play-by-play announcers have been: Dizzy

Dean (St. Louis Cardinals and ); Phil Rizzuto (New

York Yankees); Joe Garagiola (St. Louis Cardinals and New York

Yankees); (Detroit Tigers); Bud Blattner (California

Angels and ); Jerry Coleman (New York Yankees and Padres); (Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago White

Sox, and New York Mets); and (Cincinnati Reds).

Many other former players have become a part of broadcast teams as color men.

Of the thirty-one men serving as principal announcers for local radio and television broadcasts during the 1975 season, four of them were players at one time. And, from the thirty-seven men defined for purposes of this study as color men, fifteen came from the playing ranks.1*9 1

59coleman, p. 132.

1 "Barber, p. 94.

191 Broadcasting, 3 March 1975, pp. 42-46. The four principal announcers were: George Kell (Detroit); Phil Rizzuto (New York Yankees); Bud Blattner (Kansas City); and Jerry Coleman (San 57

There have been several critics of the "invasion of the broadcast booth" by former pla.yers.

One of the more vocal critics of the former athletes was

Red Barber. He described the gradual process of "professional broadcasters" being replaced by ballplayers during his term of employment with the New York Yankees, when he wrote:

I arrived there [in New York] in 1954. At that time, Mel Allen and Jim Woods were the play-by-play men--both professional broadcasters. Along came Phil Rizzuto, away went Jim Woods. Jerry Coleman, the former , was added to create a four-man team. Then away went Mel Allen, hello Joe Garagiola. Bang, Barber hit the dirt, and for the season of 1967, the three former ballplayers comprised the entire radio-television team. A few years later, Garagiola went to the NBC Today Show on a full-time basis, and was brought from Baltimore. This made news inasmuch as Messer had not been a player, and the replacement for him at Baltimore, Jim Karel las, had not been a player, either. A small ray of hope for the professional announcers . . . small, but a ray.'02

Barber's main complaint with the former athlete as announcer was that he "shoulders in to gild the lily" and uses professional jargon "to cover up a definite lack of working English . . . [making] the 'experts' sound far more expert than they are.03

In The Jocks, Shecter asserted that there was reason other

Diego). The fifteen color men included: (Boston); (Cleveland); Jim Grant (Cleveland); (Milwaukee); Bill White (New York Yankees); (California); (Chicago Cubs); (Montreal); Ralph Kiner (New York Mets); (); Nellie King (Pittsburgh); (St. Louis); Ernie Johnson (Atlanta); (Cincinnati); and, (Cincinnati). Minnesota had not selected a color announcer at the time the article was published.

1°2Barber, p. 114.

l°3lbid., pp. 112, 238. 58

than expertise for the hiring of former players. He wrote:

... It upsets me to think that because advertising agency men and advertisers "like to hoist a few with ex­ athletes that there will be no more Red Barbers coming along in the broadcasting business.'04

Shecter added an anecdote which told of a little boy asking

Barber what it took to become a baseball broadcaster. Barber replied:

"Well, first you've got to bat .300.

Tobin, in an editorial for Saturday Review, suggested that the only value of the former player as announcer was in advertising prestige.

The signing of prominent former athletes as sports reporters might sound great in a Madison Avenue sanctum, but the truth is that sports stars generally know little of the immense complexities of journalism, even in their own athletic specialties, or if they have the expertise, they cannot communicate it. is a case in point. Probably the greatest of our time, he may well be the worst sports broadcaster in the business. He seems never to have done his homework and has absolutely no idea what to say next--and when it comes out, it is usually some generalization that could have been made a year ago in girls' field hockey. and , on the other hand, appear to have an inkling of what journalism is about.106

Shecter wrote that the main drawback in using former athletes as broadcasters is that the material which results "is a great debasement of broadcasting standards, not only of voice and language, but of reporting."107 10

104Shecter, p. 96.

1°5Ibid.

106RiChard L. Tobin, "Mustangs and Tigers on Madison Avenue," Saturday Review, 11 November 1967, p. 84.

1°7Shecter, p. 92. 59

He continued,

It is one thing for Gerry Coleman, former Yankee second- baseman, who has only a minor speech defect, to say on the air, "We thought for a minute as though that might drop," or that "pandamanium has broken loose here," or to have to contend with Phil Rizzuto's abrasively aggressive voice, his inane "," and his strangled syntax. It's quite another to be told that these men are giving us an inside view. In fact, they are doing exactly the opposite. These men protect fellow athletes with a fervor undreamed of in the ordinary TV shill. They do less than report--they deliberately conceal J98

Kirshenbaum agreed with Shecter by adding that the former players tended to be protective toward those playing the games.

Ostensibly hired for their insights into the game, they are often the most protective of all, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that their real mission is to lend their more or less illustrious names to the struggle for higher ratings.199

Frank charged that the former athletes "merely increased the flow of treacle on the air."*1 19 He wrote that emotional involvement in the sport often accompanied the former athlete to the booth.

They know very well when a boner has been pulled or a team is dogging it, but they are reluctant to criticize old teammates and opponents. They seem to feel their first allegiance is to the game they played.111

Coleman devoted a chapter of his book to "The Role of the

Former Athlete" and acknowledged the problem of an athlete's loyalty to the players.

198Ibid.

1 "Kirshenbaum, "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play . . . ," p. 38.

119Frank, p. 9.

H1 Ibid. 60

Too often, especially when he's just breaking into broadcasting, the former player takes an athlete's view of every situation. He still thinks of himself as part of the fraternity, so to speak. Thus, if an misplays a ball, the ex-player is apt to make an excuse for him, because he knows the feeling that comes from booting one. Many athletes are not as objective as they might be when describing a play, but with experience, the good ones loosen up.1'2

Coleman contended that the former athlete has as much right to

the broadcast booth as anyone else and should not be resented because

he has not served an apprenticeship. However, Coleman continued,

The resentment should come, ... if the ex-player does not do his announcing job well--if his playing experience hinders rather than helps him. Then the big name should be resented, not only by his fellow announcers but also by the fans who are forced to put up with his incompetence.'*3

One advantage that the former athlete had, according to

Coleman, was that, because he was "a member of the lodge," he could be privy to information that some announcers could not get, simply because he (the athlete) knew the players well and had their confidence.

One of the announcers interviewed made the suggestion that the influx of past players had increased the amount of insecurity in the baseball broadcasting industry. He commented:

As long as you have the invasion by ex-athletes as announcers, the amount of insecurity is going to increase. They may take over the whole thing. I've talked against it [on TV sports shows], but you can't seem to find much of an audience for your complaints.I14

112Coleman, p. 114.

H3lbid., p. 112.

H4Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 61

Of the thirty-one men who served as the principal play-by-play announcers for major league radio and/or television broadcasts of local games in 1975, the backgrounds of only ten could be traced from available published material.

And, even this limited material did not include information on education and professional training, economic and geographic background, nor other important demographic data from which more could be learned about the occupation and those performing it.

Changes of Announcer and of Flagship Station

Broadcasting magazine carried annual articles on baseball broadcasting rights and announcers each year since 1961. These articles named the men broadcasting the games of each individual major league team and also identified the flagship station, or originating station, for regional networks.

From this data, no pattern was seen in employment or station longevity. Several teams were covered by the same man during the past fifteen seasons while others, like the Minnesota Twins for example, changed television announcers seven times.

Although it could be theorized that a change in announcer would be more likely to come when there was a change in the flagship station acquiring the rights, there was no correlation. In fact, there were nineteen changes of flagship stations between 1961 and

1975--but, only five of those changes were accompanied by a change of announcer. In twenty-four changes of television stations, only eight changes in announcer resulted. 62

It was not known whether the contracts between teams and announcers prevented a large number of these coincidental changes because there was' no data available on how many of these announcers were hired by the teams and how many were hired by the station.

Table 2 includes the major league franchises operating between 1961 and 1975, the number of changes in announcers, changes in stations acquiring broadcasting rights, and the coincidental changes in both announcer and station.

There was pertinent information which could not be obtained from the Broadcasting articles. For example, there was no way of ascertaining the incidence of firing. Did all of these changes represent resignation by announcers for jobs with other teams?

There was only fifteen years of data available on mobility within the occupation. Was it common for one announcer to work for several teams during his career? Also there was no information on the length of time the men spent looking for work while between jobs. Further study was required for formulating answers to these questions.

Summary

The unique relationship between baseball and broadcasting has developed to a point of considerable financial importance to the stations, the sponsors, and the ball clubs. The important person in the cyclical process of delivering the success or failure of sizeable monetary investments has been the play-by-play announcer or, more specifically, the principal play-by-play announcer, since he has carried the heavier on-air load. 63

TABLE 2.

aSOURCE: Broadcasting, 6 March 1961,;pp. 27-34; 5 March 1962, pp. 36-44; 4 March 1963, pp. 66-70; 24 February 1964, pp. 32-42; 1 March 1965, pp. 44-49; 28 February 1966, pp. 34-41; 20 February 1967, pp. 36-45; 19 February 1968, pp. 40-49; 17 February 1969, pp. 44-46; 9 February 1970, pp. 26-36; 22 February 1971, pp. 19-28; 28 February 1972, pp. 39-52; 26 February 1973, pp. 37-46; 25 February 1974, pp. 37-46; and 3 March 1975, pp. 36-46.

# Denotes station had rights which were shared with another station during one season.

* Although franchise did not operate entire fifteen years during which data were acquired, data from all years of operation were included. 64

TABLE 2

CHANGES AMONG ANNOUNCERS AND STATIONS, 1961-19759

RADIO . TELEVISION

Name Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of of Team/ Changes Changes Changes Changes Changes Changes Years in the in the of both in the in the of both of principal station at same principal station at same Study announcer time announcer time

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Baltimore 61-75 1 0 0 1 0 0 Boston 61-75 3 0 0 3 2 1 Cal ifornia 61-75 2 0 0 2 1 1 Chicago 61-75 1 2 1 2 2 2

fcleveland 61-75 4 1 1 2 0 0 Detroit 61-75 0 0# 0 1 0 0 Kansas City 69-75* 0 1 0 0 1 0 Kansas City 61-67* 1 1 0 1 1 0 Milwaukee 70-75* 0 0 0 2 0 0 Minnesota 61-75 3 0 0 7 2 2

New York 61 -75 2 2 1 2 0 0 Oakland 68-75* 0 2 0 0 2 0 Seattle 69* 0 0 0 information unavailable Texas 72-75* 0 1 0 0 3 0 Washington 61-71* 2 1 1 2 0 0

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Atlanta 66-75* 0 0 0 0 1 0 Chicago 61-75 1 0 0 0 0 0

Cincinnati 61-75 3 2 1 4 0 0 Houston 62-75* 0 0 0 0 5 0 Los Anoeles 61-75 0 1 0 0 0 0 65

TABLE 2—Continued

RADIO TELEVISION

Name Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of of Team/ Changes Changes Changes Changes Changes Changes Years in the in the of both in the in the of both of principal station at same principal station at same Study announcer time announcer time

Milwaukee 61-75 1 1 0 0 0 0 Montreal 69-75* 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York 62-75* 0 3 0 0 0 0 Phi la. 61-75 0 1 0 0 1 0 Pittsburgh 61-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Louis 61-75 1 0 0 1 1 0 San Diggo 69-75* 2 0 0 2 2 1 San Fran. 61-75 2 0 0 2 0 0

aS0URCE: Broadcasting, 6 March 1961, pp. 27-34; 5 March 1962, pp. 36-42; 4 March 1963, pp. 66-70; 24 February 1964, pp. 32-42; 1 March 1965, pp. 44-49; 28 February 1966, pp. 34-41; 20 February 1967, pp. 36-45; 19 February 1968, pp. 40-49; 17 February 1969, pp. 44-46; 9 February 1970, pp. 26-36; 22 February 1971, pp. 19-28; 28 February 1972, pp. 39-52; 26 February 1973, pp. 37-46; 25 February 1974, pp. 37-46; and 3 March 1975, pp. 36-46.

# Denotes station had rights which were shared with another station during one season.

* Although franchise did not operate entire fifteen years during which data were acquired, data from all years of operation were included. 66

The available literature suggested that baseball broadcasting was a part of popular culture that was mass produced by these profit- minded persons for the gratification of the audience, and the announcer was a tool of this economic system, especially in the day-to-day broadcasts of local games to local audiences.

It followed that certain pressures may have come to bear on this principal announcer since his longevity of employment was likely to be related to his success in satisfying the goals of his superiors.

Some authors cited examples of where some of these superiors exercised control on the description of the games.

Announcers were portrayed as salesmen who, in addition to describing the games, promoted the sale of tickets and other commodities.

The literature stated that some announcers displayed partiality and demonstrated other tendencies in contrast to the tenets of journalism, thus, bringing question to their capabilities as reporters of the contests they broadcasted.

Although the writings suggested that most announcers had backgrounds in broadcasting, some came from other occupations including that of baseball player.

Evidence compiled from the past fifteen seasons (1961-1975) showed no pattern of longevity pertaining to the relationship of the team toward either the principal announcer or the flagship station carrying the broadcasts.

The available literature did not provide a sufficient picture of this occupation to facilitate scientific evaluation of its 67

essential aspects. These key areas required further study prior to an

overall assessment of the occupation. The areas included:

1) demographics, 2) development of professional life, 3) longevity,

4) financial status, 5) identity of baseball broadcasting employer,

6) influence of the ball club, actual and perceived, 7) the announcer and attendance, 8) perception of the audience, 9) partiality,

10) the work setting, 11) health and leisure, and 12) announcer opinion on selected subjects relating to the occupation.

Each of these areas is discussed in the section which follows.

Aspects of the Occupation for Study

1. Demographics

To determine if there were common factors of background, a study of selected demographic factors such as geographic background, age, economic background, and marital status was required.

Geographic background. The information on the geographic background of the announcers was somewhat limited.

Barber wrote of listening to a radio with childhood friends in Sanford, Florida. In his book, Barber cited the home towns of the following baseball announcers: Graham McNamee (St. Paul); Ted

Husing (New York City); and Bill Munday (state of Georgia).115

Coleman's book contained the following geographic backgrounds:

Vin Scully (New York City); (Johnstown, Pennsylvania);

Jack Brickhouse (Peoria, Illinois); (Reading,

115Barber, pp. 11, 23, 30, 38. 68

Pennsylvania); Ernie Harwell (Atlanta); and Coleman (Quincy,

Massachusetts) 5

Although there appeared to be no pattern of geographic

background in the examples cited above, one of the principal

announcers interviewed prior to this study suggested that most of

the broadcasters hailed from the midwest. His theory was that

greater opportunity existed for the development of young announcers

there due to the great number of minor league franchises and college

athletic conferences there.7

Exploration into the geographic backgrounds would confirm

or dispel his theory.

Age. The books written by Barber, Coleman, and Whitfield provided data on their ages. As of 1975, Barber was sixtv-eight,

Coleman was fifty, and Whitfield was forty years old. Although these ages represented a span of three-decades, it was not known if this was a representation which permitted an assessment of the potential career length.

Economic background. There was little data available on the economic background of the baseball broadcasters from childhood.

Mel Allen was the son of a drygoods merchant while Bob Prince grew up in a number of army camps where his father was an army colonel J^8 * * *

116Coleman, pp. 124-25, 127, 129.

^Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975.

^8Allen, p. 3; Cope, p. 171. 69

___-..Because studies have often used the occupation of the father

(or guardian) as the main comparative for judging economic background,119 a study of these occupations would enable a judgment to be made on the possibility that the announcers had greater economic opportunity for education and other advantages than the average person.

Marital status. Although in their books Barber and Whitfield both mentioned being married while Allen indicated he was single, little was known about the marital status of the occupational group as a whole. An inquiry into marital status would reveal if these men, who were required to travel extensively and maintain irregular hours, tended to remain or become single.

2. Development of Professional Life

To understand the development of an announcer's professional life, it was important to trace his interests in sports, his training, education/and his access to the major league level.

Childhood interest and education. In his book, Coleman mentioned that he "had grown up listening to all kinds of sports

119Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, 1947); M. E. Deeg and D. G. Patterson, "Changes in Social Status of Occupations," Occupations, vol. 25, January 1947; Paul K. Hatt, "Occupation and Social Stratifications," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 55, May 1950 were three studies which dealt with occupation and status. Others may be found cited in Theodore Caplow, The Sociology of Work (: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). 70

broadcasters.1,120

It was conceiveable that a number of announcers might have

been both avid sports participants and listeners to sports broadcasts

during their childhood years.

In following that interest, the decision to pursue a career in

sports broadcasting might have been made at some time prior to the

completion of the young man's formal education. The direction and

length of that education would likely follow patterns which would

better prepare the announcer for fulfilling his ambition. It was

also likely that this preparation might include formal instruction in

broadcasting and journalism along with on-the-air experience.

To test this thesis of childhood interest, pre-graduation

commitment, and follow-up training, a thorough survey of the

backgrounds of all announcers was needed.

Access to the major leagues. Coleman wrote that "no two

stories were alike" where an announcer's reaching the major leagues was concerned. "Each man got his big break in a different way," he wrote.121

Earlier in this chapter, the "breaks" of Gowdy, Scott, Woods,

Harwell, and Allen were described. To further confirm or dispel

Coleman's "different way" theory, more biographical data was needed.

(Since figures cited earlier in the chapter showed that only four of

120Coleman, p. 5.

121ibid., p. 134. 71

the thirty-one principal announcers during 1975 were former players,

the athlete-announcers were not separated from those who came from

other backgrounds).

The data acquired needed to demonstrate both the method of

reaching the major league level of baseball broadcasting, and, so

that a potential career length could be established, the age at which

access was gained.

Barber wrote that his first job as a principal announcer of

local major league broadcasts came at the age of twenty-seven. For

Allen, his major league announcing debut with the Yankees came at

twenty-six while Whitfield began at thirty-two. From this, no assessment could be made for the entire group of announcers on the

likely age for arrival at the major league level J22

3. Longevity

The information contained in Broadcasting magazine during the fifteen year period (1961-1975) indicated that twenty-nine changes of the principal radio announcer and thirty-four chanqes of the principal television announcer occurred—an average of approximately two changes per season in each medium.

But, this did not convey a factor on longevity since some

teams saw no changes in announcers while others saw many. A more acceptable method of determining longevity of career was to study the career of each individual announcer. This would permit an assessment of the security factor in this occupation.

122Barber, pp. 28, 67; Allen, pp. 1, 3; Whitfield, o. 2. 72

4. Financial Status

Salary. Barber, in The Broadcasters, mentioned that in his final years with the Mew York Yankees (mid 60s), he was paid

$50,000.123

An article in New York Times Magazine revealed that, as of the 1971 season, the Yankee announcers all made at least $25,000 and

Phil Rizzuto collected close to $50,000 per season.124 *

Pittsburgh Pirates' announcer Bob Prince, according to an article written in 1965, drew $70,000. That figure included the pay derived from other sidelines.126

To arrive at an accurate assessment of the financial security through the ranks of all announcers, it was necessary to request that each furnish a rough of the income derived from baseball announcing. In addition, other factors seemed appropriate for study.

The relationship of longevity to salary level, length and type of contractual agreement, security provided by outside occupations, the length of time required to find another job, and, the announcers' assessment of job security were all considered significant areas for investigation prior to making a judgment of financial security in the occupation.

Pxelationship of longevity to salary level. Because persons

123Barber, p. 206.

124J. Anthony Lukas, "How Mel Allen Started a Lifelong Love Affair," p. 88.

126Cope, p. 167. 73

in most occupations have found improved salary with longevity, it seemed appropriate to determine if announcers saw the same benefit.

A comparison of the years of experience and salary level of the group would determine if that was the case.

Length and type of contractual agreement. Judging from the preliminary interviews, there were basically four kinds of employment contracts: the one-year (unwritten) agreement, the one-year contract, the multi-year (unwritten) agreement, and the multi-year contract.

By studying the careers of the announcers, it could be determined if the most common contract was the type which afforded the most security--the multi-year contract.

Types and security provided by outside occupations. In the interviews, one announcer suggested that it was wise to develop play-by-play abilities in more than one sport, especially when one considered that the baseball season did not cover the entire year.125

To determine the announcers' overall financial status, it was appropriate to discover the other jobs the announcers held outside of baseball and the abilities they had to live comfortably either without baseball broadcasting or without the other occupations.

Length of time required to find another job. The knowledge of the length of time an announcer had to search for work also would afford a clue as to occupational security when reduced through

125lnterview with Announcer No. 3, 9 June 1975. 74

employment termination.

Announcer assessment of overall job security. Despite the

perceptions drawn from the research, it was of interest to obtain

the announcers' own perceptions of whether they enjoy more, equal,

or less overall job security than other persons.

5. Identity of Baseball Broadcasting Employer

The only figures available on the identity of the announcer's

employer were those published in a 1970 study conducted by Ira

Horowitz. During that year, eight of the twenty-four major league

teams sold their local rights to individual stations which hired the

announcers. In that same year, seven teams sold their rights directly

to a sponsor which, in turn, hired the announcers. The sponsor

purchased the broadcast time from the individual stations/27

This left nine teams which either hired the announcers themselves or

negotiated some different kind of arrangement than those mentioned.

Earlier in this chapter, independence in reporting was

presented as one of the tenets of journalism. To obtain data on

independence, it was important to discover not only the identity of

the employers, but also to ascertain which employer the announcers

thought was best for them and whether the ball club gained better

on-air treatment through hiring the announcer itself. If announcers

< answered that there was no difference in employers and that it did 127

127Horowitz, "Sports Broadcasting," p. 278. 75

not alter the benefit derived by the team when it employed the

broadcaster, there would be reason to believe that the theory that

"it doesn't matter who pays you" was true.

This theory was promulgated by a Los Angeles sports announcer,

Stu Nahan, who was quoted in a TV Guide article written by Durslag.

"At various times," Nahan says, "I have done football, baseball, and hockey as an employee of clubs, networks, and local stations. My function in all cases was the same-- to sell the team to the public. No club ever made me be more of a 'homer' than a station did.128

6. Influence of the Ball Club, Actual and Perceived

Investigation into several areas of relationship between the

announcer and the ball club was necessary to facilitate an evaluation

of the influence of the team on the broadcasts. These areas included:

being summoned "on the carpet," resignation and firing, personal on-air

taboos and those perceived from the teams, and the influence of

associations with baseball personnel.

Summoned "on the carpet," resignation, and firing. One method

by which announcers have been subject to influence was being called

"on the carpet" for a meeting with the employer or a representative

of the employer to discuss something said on the air. Whitfield and

Barber both reported such meetings. To obtain an overall reading on

the frequency of these meetings, it was necessary to study all

* announcers and to learn from them an estimate on how often such

meetings took place (if at all), and whether resignation due to

128 Durslag, "We Pause for a Confession from Our Announcer," p. 40. 76

this outside influence or firing was common.

From this data, a statement was possible not only on the

occurrence of these meetings, but also on the overall effect.

All announcers were surveyed on this topic, but, because

the focus was on the influence of the ball club, the answers of

announcers employed by teams were of greater interest.

Personal on-air taboos and those perceived from the teams.

Earlier in this chapter, Parrish, Eskenazi, Tobin, and Mayer criticized

sports announcers in general while Lukas, Koppett, and Kirshenbaum

criticized baseball broadcasters in particular for their alleged

tendency to protect the teams they covered.

Although these writers presented examples of such protection,

there was no indication of what the overall group of broadcasters

considered to be taboo. In addition, there was no indication of what

the announcers perceived as items which the clubs considered taboo.

Presented with typical situations requiring decisions by the

broadcaster, each had to decide whether he had a personal taboo on the situation and whether he thought that most teams had a taboo on it.

An impression of philosophical dichotomy was the goal of this series of items.

A comparison of the responses of various demographic groups

(i.e. lesser experience, ball club employees, journalism background, and

summoned "on the carpet,") was included to determine if there were characteristics more likely to result in taboos than others. 77

Influence of associations with baseball personnel. Barber mentioned that he did not become close in friendship with players from the team he covered since it might effect his impartial report of the game. Influence might also be felt from such persons as the general manager, field manager, or owner of the club as well J29

Inquiry into this matter, not considered in any of the other writings, was another requisite for assessing influence on the broadcasts.

In addition, in cases where an announcer considered one group of baseball people as the most important to his work as a broadcaster, it was of interest to know whether this was the same group who was his most frequent social companion off the air.

Combining the announcers' opinions on the effect baseball persons had on the broadcasts with an identification of both the most important group to his work and his most frequent social group off the air enabled an evaluation of the forces encountered consciously and subconsciously in the formulation of the report.

7. The Announcer and Attendance

Kirshenbaum and Frank focused on the announcer and his role in promoting home attendance. Both implied that this was a part of the announcer's responsibility as a salesman. One of the announcers interviewed suggested that "plugging tickets is actually giving news to people."^30

^29Barber, p. 234.

130interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974. 78

To better comprehend the announcer's role, it was necessary to

inquire: T) if he considered it a part of his responsibility to

promote ticket sales, 2) whether, in addition to reading the

information, he encouraged such purchases, 3) whether, if he

encouraged ticket sales, he did so voluntarily, and 4) whether he

believed he had the power to help or harm home attendance.

A perception of the announcer's acceptance or rejection of

responsibilities as salesman was possible from this line of questioning

8. Perception of the Audience

Prince referred to partisanship of the listening audience as

justification for partisanship in his game description. There was

no consensus of opinion among announcers on this toDic nor on other

subjects pertinent to a study of audience.

Among the factors of importance in the announcer's relationship

with his listeners included: perceptions of team loyalty; regular

1istenership; demographics; feedback and its effect; and audience

knowledge of baseball rules, lingo, and other data.

Perceptions of team loyalty, regular listenership, and demo­ graphics. A justification for partiality among its proponents

prompted an inquiry into the announcers' evaluation of their audiences.

Were "fans" of the team the intended focus of their broadcasts? Did

these people comprise a large percentage of the audience? What

percentage of the listeners were regular listeners? Answers to these questions afforded a clearer picture of the unseen audience to which the announcers directed their messages. 79

Perception of audience baseball knowledge. Nowhere in the

literature was there an indication of what perceptions the announcers

had of the the knowledge level of their listeners. With baseball,

as with any other profession, there was a set of specialized language

and rule structure governing the operation of franchises and the

conduct of the games.

To obtain a clue as to the announcer's perception of the

sophistication of his listeners, each was presented with a list of

some of the terms and conditions which required more than passive

interest in the sport. Each announcer was asked to indicate his

impression on which of the terms or conditions the audience was

likely to have knowledge.

Audience feedback and its effect. Feedback from the audience was a part of the broadcasting business which most announcers recognized but not all accepted with willingness as a part of the job

One announcer said that a former colleague referred several

letters to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of 1 Of Investigation because the criticism included threats.

Another explained that "listeners who are also fans react emotionally to an event. You can expect them to react to you emotionally since you may be telling them what they don't want to

hear."1312

Still another related suspicion to both negative and positive

131Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975.

!32lnterview with Announcer No. 4, 21 August 1975. 80

feedback. He said:

You have to realize that not everybody's going to like your work. If you are criticized, you have to take it the best you can and not get down because somebody's written you a letter saying you're a bum. Nor should you take the good letters too seriously. People are complimenting you because they often want something from you/33

In his book for prospective broadcasters, Coleman encouraged students to recognize that most listeners do not write at all.

Most who do write in do so because you have evoked in them strong emotions. They think you are great or they think you are terrible. Sometimes they are just plain thoughtful. These people will sit down at the end of a.,season and just drop a line to tell you they've enjoyed the year. With all the praise and condemnation, the cheers and boos, where does this leave the announcer? Hopefully, with his feet planted solidly, accepting himself for what he is. It should also leave him never quite satisfied professionally, so that he tries to make the next broadcast the best one yet/34

One of the announcers contended that there was a relationship between the team standing and the amount of negative feedback received by the announcer. In addition, he added that most of the members of his occupation developed a "thick skin" toward criticism, that critical mail did not bother them, and that, to his knowledge, no announcer had quit or been fired because of negative feedback from

1 isteners/35

To assess the overall effect of audience feedback, it was necessary to obtain an opinion on these contentions from all of the announcers.

^33Interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974.

^34Coleman, p. 136.

^35Interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974. 81

9. Partiality

Frank, Durslag, Craig, and Barber criticized some announcers of major league games for displaying partiality to the teams they covered. Yet, Allen, Whitfield, Frick, and Coleman favored it with varying degrees of emotion.

Because the opinions presented did not comprise the majority, and since much literature was devoted to this philosophical question, a survey of announcers was conducted to provide a better indication of the degree of partiality exhibited by the announcers as a group.

It was also of interest to learn if those who did admit to

"pulling for the home team" had formal training in journalism—training which acquainted them with the tenet of impartiality. Combining the data obtained in the survey of formal training with the responses on partiality provided a clearer indication of the acceptance or abandonment of this journalistic principle. It was of'interest in the study of employer identity to compare those answers with responses on partiality to determine if announcers employed by the ball club tended more toward partiality than announcers with other employers.

10. The Work Setting

Some other aspects of the day-to-day occupation of baseball broadcasting were not accorded much space in the literature, but still seemed a part of the atmosphere surrounding the announcer. Included among these other aspects were: work week; involvement in personal appearances; in-park working conditions; and the importance, responsibilities, and relationship of the color man—the man with whom 82

the announcer worked for;as many as 180 games per year.

These aspects of the work setting were important for study because they related to the health and attitude of the announcer toward his work.

Work week. There was little indication in the literature as to the number of hours per week an announcer had to devote to his work.

Whitfield wrote:

... I was startled early in the 1969 season to learn from business manager that [Owner Robert] Short expected me in my office at the stadium during the morning and afternoon before a night game. If I arrived at, say 10:00 in the morning for a night game which started at 8:00 that evening. I would be putting in about a fourteen- hour-day. . . J3®

It was apparent that there was a varying number of hours worked each week--especiall.y when considering that as many as ten to fifteen days in succession were spent either at home or in other cities on a road trip.

To determine if Whitfield's fourteen-hour-dav was common, it was necessary to obtain figures from a number of announcers.

Both "home work week" and "road work week" data was needed since there were limitations on the amount of business involving the announcer away from his home base.

The comparison of these figures with the employer identities helped provide an impression as to which employer (if any) tended to require the most work from an announcer.

136whitfield, p. 80. 83

Personal appearances. Another aspect of important in evaluating the energy expended by the announcer was the making of personal appearances because of his association with baseball.

One announcer contended that, with some employment arrangements, personal appearances were expected as part of the job/37

Whitfield charged, however, that, not only were these a part of his job while with the Washington Senators, but that he was not permitted to keep any money derived from the appearances.

Anyone could have knocked me over v/ith a feather when I learned that Short expected me to turn over to the ball club all fees and honorariums I received from speaking engagements. [Public Relations Director Oscar] Malamot announced to me that he was arranging to book me for frequent appearances during the season. My impression was that I would [be] making these promotional appearances during the off season. I didn't mind an occasional appearance during the season, but a steady diet of them was too much. No baseball broadcaster is expected to do that. But apparently my contract with Short was a little different from the normal contracts given most broadcasters/30

Another announcer added that the number of personal appearances required was directly proportional to the requirements of the team to survive in the marketplace. To quote further:

If you work for the California Angels, you share the market with the Los Angeles Dodgers and the . Since the Dodgers enjoy the better fan support, you may do more to build up your appeal. Luncheons, sales meetings, and appearances at cocktail parties are part of the things you do. And its not so much to develop boosters as to impress sponsors. An area like Kansas City might not do much of this since they have a wide area to themselves/39

137interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974.

l38Whitfield, p. 79.

139interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 84

A survey of announcers was designed to reveal if there were common arrangements for payment in exchange for personal appearances, and how many of these appearances an announcer made both during and after the season.

As in the case of work week, a comparison was planned between employer identity and the data obtained to determine whether an announcer employed by the ball club was more likely to have a greater number of appearances and was less likely to receive payment for these appearances--the condition Whitfield experienced.

A high number of appearances during the season was viewed as having a relationship to the announcer's health and attitude.

In-park working conditions. Because the announcers, like the players, were faced with differing conditions for doing their work in each ball park (sight lines, room in the announce booth, avail­ ability of information), a survey requesting them to rank the three best and three worst parks seemed the best way to arrive at a concept of the ideal work atmosphere.

The color announcer. Barber stated that "the broadcasting booth should be the headquarters of a broadcast team that works together to get the work done ... to find out the whys."149

The paragraph above was the only one found in all the literature which, in any way, described the role of the color man.

In most situations, the color man was responsible for a few

149Barber, p. 233. 85

innings of play-by-play, for providing analysis of the game, and for hosting programs before and/or after the game.

There was no information available on how this man was hired, who hired him, whether the principal announcer--his companion for the entire season—had a voice in the selection, whether the color man was necessary for a good broadcast, if it was best for the two to have the same employer, and if friction developed between the two.

Also, assuming that a color man was considered necessary to the broadcast, learning of the division of responsibilities, and, thus, to learn more about the principal announcer's work load was another point of inquiry.

11. Health and Leisure

In addition to acquiring data on the work setting, it was also of interest to learn of the announcer's health and how he occupied leisure time.

It was difficult to learn from the literature whether the pressures of the job had an adverse effect on physical and emotional health, whether announcers used their leisure moments for time away from settings requiring energy for being with large groups of people, and whether their arrival at the major league level altered other aspects of their lives. These were considered items for more study.

Physical health. Judging from the preliminary interviews, the extensive travel and irregular hours that characterized the baseball broadcaster's schedule were the main reasons for occasional health problems. 86

One announcer described the routine road trip by airplane in the following statement:

Today the travel is brutal. Before, it was trains and occasional flights. But, it gets to be a touqh proposition when you fly into four different cities on one road trio at dawn.141

Another added:

It used to be that when you finished a series of three or four games in a city, the last game would be played in the afternoon. Now, you play at night, go to the airport, wait forty-five minutes for the equipment and baggage, and arrive in the next city an hour or so later. Its usually 5 AM before you get to the hotel and 6 AM before you sleep. You do that for year after year, and, eventually, it will take its toll. You tire and lose your zest...... I recall on one road swing some of us were sitting in the press room and a baseball writer whom we hadn't seen for about two seasons walked in. Everyone remarked about how good he looked just in his overall color and health. "It's simple," he told us, "I'm out of this business of rambling around the country at all hours of the day and night."142 *

None of the announcers interviewed prior to the study had ever been seriously ill. One announcer suggested that this was due to a pressure to perform which did not accomodate illness.

In contrast to working at a station every day, you really can't call in sick. You have to be ready to perform on a day-to-day basis. If a play-by-play announcer starts missing games, he knows that someone will replace him.148

To obtain a better reading on the overall health of the announcers, it was necessary to inquire into the incidence of serious illness in their occupational lives, and, in addition, to learn if

141 Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975.

142Interview with Announcer No. 4, 21 August 1975.

!43interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 87

announcers were likely to have occupational ailments, if they assessed

their health as comparable to other persons, and if the opportunity

was available for regular exercise and diet.

Emotional health. In his book on sportscasting, Coleman

referred to the emotional stresses a broadcaster encountered.

It may seem like a strange analogy, but I have found that the baseball broadcaster's life is not unlike that of the players. There are times when you feel right on top of things and times when you go into slumps. You should strive, as the player does, for consistency...... You should be yourself in a business that has more than the average amount of stress...... Things will happen, of course, over which you have little or no control. . . . You will eventually reach the point, without its being any big deal, when you accept yourself as a professional broadcaster. Setbacks will occur, but if you are a pro, you won't allow yourself the luxury of feeling sorry for yourself. . . J44

To obtain a better understanding of the emotional health

of the announcers, it was important to explore several factors related

to this condition: present assessment of happiness, appraisal of what

Coleman referred to as "slumps," and an evaluation of the announcer's

personal emotional make-up.

Leisure. There was no reference in the literature to the

leisure activities of the announcers. It would follow that, especially during the season, those leisure activities would be of considerable

importance to relieve the pressures under which the men worked.

Although it has been common for many persons to become

^44Coleman, pp. 30-31, 155-56. 88

involved in various business, fraternal, church, and civic organizations, it was possible that the men of the baseball broadcasting profession were not "joiners" of such groups, choosing to spend their time away from large groups of people.

One of the announcers interviewed prior to the study suggested that most members of the occupational group spent their leisure time away from the involvement which extensive joining of organizations required.

Some have the tendency like individuals in any profession to be joiners. After a few years, you find you want to get away much of the time to be home. The bulk of them try to limit their schedule as much as possible to be with family and friends. Others want to be seen or socialize as much as possible.145

To determine the amount of involvement the announcers had in organizations, it was necessary to survey their membership ties with business, fraternal, church, civic, and political organizations and to inquire whether they held leadership ties--responsibilities which would likely make even greater demands on their time.

In addition, to obtain a better picture of leisure time and announcers, each was asked to indicate his leisure activités both during and after the season as well as to provide an assessment of whether the occupation afforded time for pursuing interests outside of baseball.

Changes in attitudes and life style. It was conceivable

145Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 89

that arrival at the major league level of baseball broadcasting brought with it changes in attitudes and selected factors in the lives of the announcers.

Among these attitudes and factors were: 1) confidence in air travel, 2) consumption of alcohol, 3) closeness to family, 4) church attendance, 5) time for hobbies, 6) time for reading, 7) patience,

8) concern for other persons, 9) frequency of illness, 10) admiration for athletes, 11) love for baseball, 12) overall happiness, 13) being affected by criticism, and 14) financial security.

It was theorized that such characteristics requiring an expenditure of time (closeness to family, church attendance, time for hobbies, patience, and concern for other persons) experienced change.

12. Announcer Opinion on Selected Subjects Relating to the Occupation

This section was concerned with a number of unrelated subjects which were discussed briefly in the literature or were not discussed at all. These included: 1) the FCC disclosure announcement, 2) the presence of a "new breed" of announcer, 3) female announcers, 4) the minor league broadcaster, 5) an announcer's ability to transfer from broadcasting to baseball administration, 6) evaluation of self and colleagues, 7) advice for training of the aspiring announcer, 8) ideal traits of the baseball broadcaster, and 9) the good and the bad aspects of the occupation.

The FCC disclosure announcement. Whitfield discussed issues 90

which, according to some sources, prompted an FCC inquiry and a resulting requirement than an announcement be broadcast which disclosed third-party considerations on sports broadcasts.

Writers and broadcasters both claimed that the announcement had no effect on the approach to the broadcasts. It seemed appropriate, however, to discover how many announcers used the announcement, whether they thought it had any effect on sports announcing, and whether they perceived listener skepticism of the broadcaster's honesty where the announcement was used.

The responses provided an announcer's impression of the importance of the FCC legislation on their work.

Existence of "the new breed" of announcer. Frank suggested that a new audience was in existence, an audience which grew up in a climate of social upheaval. He stated that this new audience would not accept "pussyfoots fronting for promoters." If broadcasters did not tell the facts, Frank predicted, "they will be spouting into a vacuum."146

Frank's theory prompted a question as to whether there was a "new breed" of baseball announcers for this "new audience."

One announcer suggested that since baseball experienced little change during the past half-century, there was little change in game descriptions.1* 4?

146Frank, "Play Ball," p. 9.

14?Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 91

The announcer also suggested that every play-by-play

broadcaster, regardless of age and experience, was partial to the

team he covered.

To determine if there was a recognizable group of men possessing a philosophy different from their colleagues, announcers were asked if they perceived such a group and, if so, how members of that group differed from the others.

Women play-by-play announcers. An article written by an associate editor of Sports Illustrated, Curry Kirkpatrick,148 probed the rise of female sports reporters.

Kirkpatrick observed that, in addition to being a part of radio and television sports newscasts, a number of women were working as color commentators for sporting events.

One of them, Anita Martini, was a regular on the Houston

Astros' baseball radio and television pre-game shows.

With more women entering the sports broadcasting profession, it was important to sample the entirely male sample of principal announcers on what they believed public reaction would be to a woman broadcasting baseball play-by-play on a regular basis.

Evaluation of self and colleagues. As in any industry requiring performance, self-assurance has been considered an important personal quality for success. Whether this self-assurance was

148Curry Kirkpatrick, "Getting Into the Picture," Sports Illustrated, 21 April 1975, pp. 85-96. 92

reflected in an announcer's belief that he was better at his craft than most of his colleagues had not been tested. Self-appraisal, combined with an evaluation of who among his colleagues were best and most- respected, provided an indication of the announcers' perception of their personal standing in the occupation.

Expertise in franchise operation. There was no record of a play-by-play announcer having operated a baseball franchise in the major leagues. Assuming the announcer's familiarity with the operation of the major leagues and individual franchises, it was conceivable that an announcer might be confident in his ability to operate a successful team.

Confidence in this area was likely to be noticed among those announcers employed by the teams since these men were likely to have contact with office operations.

Advice on training in the profession. Although there was no data available on the number of announcers who attended college, one of the announcers interviewed prior to the study, claimed that there was no requirement of college education apparent in the baseball broadcasting occupation. "I know that the networks required a college education at one time for even becoming a page," he observed, "but, ball clubs don't seem to have that requirement."^49

Although education level of the announcers was discussed earlier in this chapter, it seemed important to gain opinions from

l49Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 August 1975. 93

those in the profession as to the value of formal training in broadcasting, in journalism, and whether a broadcasting background was essential for an aspiring broadcaster.

The minor league announcer. Coleman noted that several major league play-by-play announcers began in the minor leagues rather than making the jump to the top immediately.

Since there were usually more applicants than positions available, it seemed helpful to determine if the major league broadcasters had an assessment on the quality of minor league announcers and could convey the reasons why these minor league broadcasters had not yet reached the major leagues.

It was believed that the data obtained from those questions would supplement data obtained on training, thus, providing a better body of knowledge on the background which is most likely to lead to success in the field.

Ideal traits. Also on the subject of training, it was thought that asking each announcer for a list of preferable traits might assist the prospective broadcaster in his evaluation of the career and, more important to this research, a list of traits might provide clues to aspects of the occupation not yet considered.

The good and bad aspects of the job. In the preliminary interviews, it became apparent that announcers felt the freedom to discuss both the good and bad aspects of the baseball announcing occupation. 94

One announcer commented, "I live a fairly comfortable life and

am spoiled in a lot of ways that I wouldn't be if I didn't have this

type of job."I50

The same announcer suggested that the worst part of the job was its insecurity.

Another announcer maintained that being away'from his family was an important drawback to the baseball broadcasting business.1®1

To better learn more about the likes and dislikes of the announcers, and, thus, to learn more about the occupation itself, it was necessary to survey more announcers on their preferences.

The purpose of this study shall be to provide a scientific assessment of this occupation and the facets described above, to ascertain the relationship between the announcer and the ball club and its effect on the report of the game, and to contrast the job of baseball broadcaster with that of the journalist.

To facilitate this study, an extensive survey of the announcers on theseusdbjects was necessary.

The method employed will be explained in Chapter III.

150interview with Announcer No. 1, 15 September 1974.

151 Interview with Announcer No. 2, 12 Auguest 1975. CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Due to the limited printed information pertaining to this

occupation and the range of subject areas for investigation, data were gathered through a written questionnaire. These questionnaires were designed for both working and non-working principal announcers who have broadcasted major league games to a local audience. All efforts were made to locate these announcers.

Because of the nature of the occupation and the sensitivity of some issues, all respondents were assured anonymity as were the announcers interviewed prior to the preparation of the questionnaire.

Social scientists generally have agreed that the advantages of the written questionnaire have been its relatively low cost, that respondents may be more frank on certain issues, that it avoids interviewer bias, and that the respondent has time to exercise care in his responses.1 Although one common drawback to the written questionnaire was that a person might not tell the truth about himself,2 it was believed that since all respondents remained

M discussion of the advantages of written questionnaires may be found in Julian L. Simon's Basic Research Methods in Social Science (New York: Random House, 1969), pp. 119-20, 244-55.

2The personality test is discussed and techniques presented for its effective preparation in Leona E. Tyler's Tests and Measurements (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), pp. 70-88. 96

anonymous and because there was strong interest reflected by

announcers contacted during the preliminary phase of the study, that reliable information could be acquired.

Much of the data from the written questionnaire were.obtained by requesting short answer and check mark responses. The rest of the information was gained through questions requiring a brief essay.

Questions asked of the working and non-working principal announcer groups were identical except for those items requiring slight alterations in tense. An example was a question such as:

"Is the FCC disclosure announcement made on your broadcasts?" This was an approriate question for the working broadcasters, but for those not working at the time of the survey, the question would need to read: "Was the FCC disclosure announcement or one similar to it, made on your broadcasts?"

In acquiring the names of working and non-working announcers, considerable assistance came from the Baseball Broadcasters

Association of America, an organization comprised of twenty-one of the thirty-one principal announcers broadcasting games during the

1975 season. The BBAA membership roles included thirty-five color men, sports directors, reporters, producers, announcers, and others covering baseball on a regular basis.

Other sources consulted to acquire a list of working and non-working principal announcers included: Broadcasting magazine lists of 1961-1975 (mentioned in the preceding chapter) and names furnished by the announcers themselves. 97

To encourage participation in the study, the BBAA.included

entries in its quarterly newsletter. These entries pertaining to

the study may be read in Appendix 1.

In preparing the questionnaire, interviews were conducted with four principal announcers (one of whom was classified as working, three as non-working).

Ernie Harwell, principal announcer for the Detroit Tigers, and Shelby Whitfield, formerly principal announcer for the Washington

Senators, served as consultants on the framing of items for the written questionnaire.

The Questionnaire

To show the means by which data were acquired through the questionnaire, each of the twelve subject areas, points of inquiry, and questions designed to elicit pertinent responses are presented in the remaining pages of this chapter. The order of presentation is the same order in which the twelve areas were introduced in Chapter II.

(Questions sent to working and non-working announcers may be found in Appendix 2).

1. Demographics

Geographic background. Background on the birthplaces of announcers was limited. However, one announcer interviewed held a theory that most announcers came from the midwest since there were more minor league teams and college athletic conferences in that region. To test that theory, each announcer was asked to indicate his birthplace and to list the communities of his residence during 98

the first eighteen years of his life as well as the duration of residence in each. Requesting the location of communities was done to accomodate changes in geographic background.

In addition, the population size was requested to determine if, despite geographic region, there was a common background of community size. The announcers were asked to check one of the following phrases which described population size: over 500,000 population; large city--100,Q00 to 500,000; small city--25,000 to

100,000; small town--less than 25,000; and, farm, ranch, or open country.

Age. The age of only three announcers could be determined from printed material. The age range of the occupation group was important to afford an assessment of potential career length. Thus, each announcer was asked to indicate the date and year of his birth.

Economic background. Studies have often used the occupation of the parent (or guardian) as the main comparative for judging economic background. Each announcer was asked to cite the occupation of his father (or the person who raised him). The occupations were then ranked in accord with the seven levels designed by Richard

Centers in his study on psychology of social classes/ The levels considered by Centers as appropriate rungs on the economic scale were business executives, professionals, small business, white-collar

3Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949), pp. 76-TOl cited in Theodore Caplow, The Sociology of Work (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), p. 57. 99

workers, skilled manual workers, semi-skilled manual workers, and

unskilled manual workers. Despite the flaws of the Centers scale,

namely, that, like any scale, itwasan approximation and, unlike other

scales, it did not include farming, the seven levels demonstrated

similarities and differences in advantages for education and other

economic opportunities. In doing that, despite its flaws, the goal

of this phase of the study could be realized.

To facilitate the study of this background factor, each

announcer was asked to indicate the occupation of his father or the

person who raised him.

Marital status. The marital status of only three announcers could be acquired from the literature. Other writings indicated that the persons in this occupation have extensive travel and irregular

hours. To determine if these characteristics resulted in a group of men who remained single or became single through separation or divorce, each respondent was asked to check one of the following phrases describing marital status: never married, now married, divorced and re-married, divorced and not re-married, separated, and widowed.

To further supplement data on marriage, each announcer indicating that he was married was asked: "If married, does your spouse and/or family reside with you in or near the city where you are employed during the season?" A negative answer to this question would indicate that, despite marriage, the announcer spent a large part of the spring and sunwer living as a single person. 100

2. Development of Professional Life

Childhood interest and education. Coleman wrote that he had

grown up listening to all kinds of sports broadcasters. Making an

assumption that a number of announcers might have been both avid

sports participants and listeners to sports broadcasts during

childhood, it would follow that they might have decided to pursue

this occupation prior to the completion of their formal education and

that choices as to direction and length of that education would likely

follow patterns which might better prepare them for realizing their ambitions. Also, it was likely that this preparation might include formal instruction in broadcasting and journalism along with on-the-air experience.

Each announcer was asked a series of questions to test the theory of childhood interest, pre-graduation commitment, and follow­ up training.

To assess childhood interest in sports, each respondent was asked, "Would you say that you were an active participant in sports as a youngster?" In addition, to see if there were career aspirations as a participant, each was asked, "Did you hold ambitions of playing sports professionally?"

So that an indication of early interest in sports broadcasts might be obtained, each respondent was asked, "Would you describe yourself as being a frequent follower of sports via radio or television as a youngster?" Again, to determine career aspirations in sports announcing, each was asked, "As a youngster, did you ever have the ambition of becoming a sports announcer?" An additional question 101

asked of all respondents affirming an ambition in sportscastinq was

"Which sport or sports did you want to broadcast?"

The purpose for requesting an identity of the sports was to

determine if baseball broadcasting was a part of this ambition.

Having an ambition of broadcasting baseball, and realizing that

ambition, likely had an effect on the announcer's happiness and

determination to remain in the occupation.

So that knowledge of pre-graduation commitment might be

obtained, each respondent was asked to indicate the approximate age

at which he began to hold ambitions of being a sports announcer.

To learn the direction and length of the education, each respondent was asked to check one of the following phrases which pertained to education level: elementary school (grades one to six); junior high school (grades seven to nine); senior high school (grades ten to twelve); and college, trade school, or service training.

If a respondent indicated college, trade school, or service training, he was asked to furnish further data. Those attending college were asked to identify the school, list the number of years attended, and degree(s) earned. Respondents attending trade schools were asked to name the school, indicate the number of years, and explain the specialty learned. Those listing service training were asked to name the branch of service and their certified specialties.

In order to determine if there was formal training in broad­ casting and journalism, each announcer was asked to indicate whether he had classroom experience in either of the subjects and, if so, whether this experience took place in high school, college, trade 102

school, the service, and/or a setting classified as "other."

Additional explanation was requested of those checking "other."

To determine what previous on-the-air experience was a part of their training for the occupation of baseball announcer, each respondent was asked to check the type of facility on which his first play-by-play description was broadcasted. The choices included: commercial radio station, commercial television station, educational radio station, educational television station, commercial radio network, commercial television network, armed forces station or network, and "other." Explanation was requested of those checking

"other."

Because networks involve communication to several stations, and, thus, increased importance, respondents indicating commercial radio or television networks as the facility of their first broadcast were likely to have had less previous on-the-air training than those mentioning commercial or educational stations. The network was likely to be the facility for the announcer-athletes than for broadcasters with formal training.

Access to the major leagues. Coleman's theory that "no two stories are alike" where an announcer's reaching the major leagues was concerned was tested by requesting that each announcer give a brief description of the circumstances surrounding his entering the major league level of broadcasting. In addition, each was asked to indicate in what years he had broadcast major league games.

Deducting the birthyear from the first year in the major leagues 103

resulted in the age of access. Comparing this with the present age of working announcers facilitated the assessment of a potential career length.

3. Longevity

The information from Broadcasting magazine during a fifteen- year period (1961-1975) indicated an average of approximately two changes of principal announcer per season in both radio and television.

Because this data did not convey the longevity of individual announcers, each respondent was asked to list the years of his major league broadcasting career and the teams for which he broadcasted during each year. (Each person entered this data on a chart which may be found in Appendix 2.) Knowing the number of changes made by each announcer and the number of years in total facilitated evaluation of the security factor of this occupation.

4. Financial Status

The salaries of three announcers were learned from the avail­ able literature, but there was no way of knowing if the three (Barber

$50,000; Rizzuto, approximately $50,000; and Prince $70,000) were indicative of the salaries collected by all announcers nor, if baseball broadcasters, like persons in other occupations, saw salary improvement with increasing years of experience.

Further, there was no way of assessing security in the occupation since it was not known the length (in years) and type of contract (written or verbal).

Other factors which assisted in evaluating the security of 104

major league baseball broadcasting were: involvement of announcers in

other occupations, ability to live comfortably without those

occupations or without baseball announcing, and the length of time

required to find work after job termination.

Salary. Because the exact amount of money earned from

baseball announcing was considered private business, the announcers were asked to check one of the following salary ranges: under $20,000;

$20,000-$50,000; $50,000-$80,000; and over $80,000.

Relationship of longevity to salary level. So that relationships could be drawn between longevity and salary level, the salaries of announcers with varying years of experience were compared.

Data had been acquired in previous questions.

Length and type of contractual agreement. Judging from the announcers interviewed, there were four kinds of employment contracts: the one-year unwritten agreement, the one-year written contract, the multi-year unwritten agreement, and the multi-year written contract.

Each announcer was asked to indicate which of these types of agreements he had in each of his years in major league baseball broadcasting. (For agreements not conforming to those described above, the phrase "other" could be checked.) The data was entered on a chart which may be found in Appendix 2.

The multi-year contract was considered to be the one which afforded the most security. 105

Types of other occupations and security. It was possible that

announcers supplemented their baseball income with that derived from

covering other sports in the off-season. Thus, in addition to

listing all jobs held outside of baseball, the announcers were asked

to respond to a list of sports, checking those which they had covered.

Space was provided for additions to the list.

To further assess experience in sports broadcasting, each was asked to indicate the number of years in which he had been working (sports jobs and jobs outside of sports).and, then was asked how many of those work years had been devoted to broadcasting sports.

Seeking further evidence of potential for financial stability, each announcer was asked to consider the possibility of having no baseball income as well as having income from baseball only. The two questions designed to acquire this data were: 1) "Would you be hard-pressed for an income if the baseball franchise you cover were to fold or if your job was terminated?" and 2) "Is it your opinion that you could earn a comfortable living if your income was limited only to doing the play-by-play of baseball games?"

Length of time required to find another job. To better understand how readily an announcer could find work upon termination of employment, each was asked, "How long did you look for work after your last job?" The responses which could be chosen included: went from one job to another immediately; less than one week; one to four weeks; one to four months; and longer than four months. 106

Assessment of overall job security. So that an opinion could be presented on the subject of occupational security, each announcer was asked how he would compare job security in baseball broadcasting with that of most other occupations. Possible responses included: less security than most, equal security with most, and more security than most other jobs.

5. Identity of Baseball Broadcasting Employer

Aside from the figures provided by Horowitz in his study of the 1970 season, there was no data which properly identified the employer of each broadcaster. Horowitz revealed that the announcers were hired in nearly equal ratios by sponsors, teams, and stations.

Because of the importance of the relationship between the ball club and the announcer and the question of its effect on reporter independence, it was necessary to acquire updated statistics on the number of announcers paid by each classification of employers.

Thus, each announcer was asked to indicate on a chart the identity of his employer in the most recent year during which he broadcasted major league baseball games. The selections for identity of employer included: station, team, advertiser, and "other."

Because of the discussion of the third-party influences on the game report, it was appropriate to ask each respondent to indicate which employer he thought was best for the announcer. Choices included: station, ball club, sponsor, advertising agency, and "no one arrangement better than another."

The literature suggested that, whether an announcer was paid 107

by the team or station, it would not effect his promoting the team.

With this in mind, each announcer was asked to assess the relationship

from the ball club's position in the following question: "In your opinion, does a ball club get better treatment on the air when it employs the play-by-play announcer rather than his being employed by someone else?" The possible responses were: club gets better treatment if it employs the play-by-play announcer; club gets poorer treatment; and, no difference.

Responses of "no difference" to both of the questions (best employer for announcer, team value in hiring announcer itself) would prove that the writers and broadcasters holding the theory of "it doesn't matter who pays you" were correct.

6. Influence of the Ball Club, Actual and Perceived

Summoned "on the carpet." Whitfield and Barber both reported being called to meetings with their employers or with representatives of their employers to discuss the material aired during the game descriptions. Since it was not known if that was a common practice, the announcers were asked how often (frequently, on rare occasions, or never) that these meetings had taken place and whether resignation ever resulted from the employers' inter­ ference with the broadcasts.

In addition, the announcers were asked if they had ever been dismissed from a major league play-by-play job.

From this data, a statement could be made on the occurrence and effect of these meetings. 108

Although the data from all announcers was of importance, because the focus of this section was on the influence of the ball club, the answers of those announcers most recently employed by a team were of greater interest. A higher proportion of meetings among these team-employed announcers would imply that more influence was exerted on their broadcasts than on those of the announcers employed by the stations, advertisers, or other parties.

On-air taboos and those perceived from the teams. Parrish,

Tobin, Eskenazi, and Mayer criticized sports announcers in general while Lukas, Koppett, and Kirshenbaum criticized baseball broadcasters in particular for protecting teams they covered.

Although these writers presented examples of such protection, there was no indication of what the overall group of broadcasters considered to be taboo, and, thus, a part of this protection. Nor was there an indication, other than in a few examples previously cited, of what the announcers perceived as items which were taboo so far as the club was concerned.

The announcers were presented with a list of items which embodied situations capable of embarrassing the ball club but also capable of occurring during a broadcast. Prior to each item, space was allotted for checking "I would not" and "team would not want."

A response of "I would not" indicated that the announcer would not mention the subject on the air while a response of "team would not want" indicated that the announcer perceived that the team would not want the subject mentioned. 109

The items listed for announcer response were as follows:

1) a fight among fans in the stands at a home game, 2) a fight among fans in the stands at a road game, 3) a player from the team you are covering angrily hurls a bat into the stands and injures a spectator,

4) a player from another team angrily hurls a bat into the stands and injures a spectator, 5) a very small turnout at a home game, 6) bad weather conditions, 7) the batting average of each player appearing in the game, 8) the appearance on the field of a "streaker," and 9) the words on a banner carried onto the field by a political group.

A fight among fans in the stands at a home game, if described, might result in embarrassment to the team by conveying the impression that attending the game might place a ticket-holder in the vicinity of violence. In contrast, a fight among fans at a game in another team's park would not represent the degree of harm to the club the announcer was covering and, thus, there would be less concern on the part of the team.

A similar condition existed where a member of a team hurls a bat into the stands and injures a spectator. If this act were committee by a member of the team covered, as it was when announcer

Bob Prince responded, "I can't tell you about it," the team might appreciate the incident being ignored. An act of this nature involving a player from the opposition would not cast a reflection on the home team. Thus, it was likely that there would be no taboo.

Whitfield and Barber mentioned that they had difficulty when they announced the attendance where a small number of fans embarrassed management. To determine if there was perceived difficulty with other no

teams, an item on poor attendance was included on the list.

Bad weather brought Whitfield into a confrontation with his employer who thought that providing weather information would cause persons en route to the park to remain at home. To determine if this was a personal taboo with most announcers and perceived as taboo by the clubs, an item mentioning bad weather conditions was placed on the list.

Presenting statistics such as the batting average of each player appearing in the game had potential for embarrassing the home team since some players did not fair so well as others.

According to Mann, Barber was asked by the Brooklyn Dodgers' management to refrain from quoting the batting averages of the players who batted less than .250.4

It was also possible that giving the batting average of a player who came to the team in a controversial trade drew attention to a mistake in decision-making by management.

Having a "streaker" (nude or nearlv-nude person) on the field likely resulted in an effect that was either embarrassing or enter­ taining to the fans and the ball club. This item was included in the hope that some clarification would result on how an incident such as this would be viewed.

The political group on the field represented a question not so much of embarrassment as a problem of according publicity to such groups and, thus, prompting repeat performances. The club and announcers might both prefer a taboo on such incidents.

. 4Mann, p. 211. m

Taj lying the total taboos cited by different demographic

groups (i.e. inexperienced announcers, ball-club employees, those

summoned by employers, and those with formal training in journalism)

would assist an assessment of whether some characteristics were more

likely to produce taboos than others.

Influence of associations with baseball personnel. Barber mentioned that he did not develop close friendships with players from

the team he covered since it might effect his impartial report of

the game.

Because potential for influence could rest with the club owner, general manager, and field manager as well as the pla)'ers, each announcer was asked to consider these persons and the effect close friendships with them would have on their report. The phrasing of the question was as follows: "Do you think that it would affect your report of the games if you were to establish a close friendship with specific players?" The same question was posed concerning friendships with the owner, general manager, and field manager of the ball club.

In addition, each announcer was asked to indicate which of several groups of persons were most important to his work and with which group he socialized most frequently. The choices of groups included: players, field manager and coaches, general manager and front office staff, other broadcasters, persons outside of baseball and broadcasting, and "no one group more than another."

Of interest here was determining if the most important group to an announcer's work was his most frequent group for social 112

interaction.

Announcers selecting either players, general manager, field

manager, or owner as the most important group—and, choosing that

same particular group as the most frequent social group—would

appear to be more open to either conscious or subconscious influence

than other respondents.

7. The Announcer and Attendance

Frank and Kirshenbaum suggested that baseball broadcasters

were responsible for promotion of home attendance.

To learn if this was common, each announcer was asked: 1) if

he considered it a part of his responsibility to promote ticket sales

for home games, 2) whether, in addition to reading the information,

he encouraged purchase of tickets, 3) if encouragement of home

attendance was done voluntarily, and 4) if he believed that he had

the power to help or harm attendance.

Responsibility and encouragement. It was not known from the

literature how many announcers considered it "a part of the job" to

promote home game ticket sales, nor was it known how many of them

encouraged such sales.

Although to arrive at a consensus of the responsibility, a

"yes or no" answer was utilized—a different technique was required

for determining encouragement of sales. Each announcer was asked to

indicate which of three techniques he considered the best for announcing the information concerning upcoming home games: 1) giving

the date, opposition, and starting time; 2) announcing the date, 113

opposition, starting time, and ticket locations, and 3) announcing the

information and adding some sort of encouraging phrase such as "come

on out and see this team."

The second choice, that which included the ticket locations,

was considered to be more "commercial" than the first since listeners

were being given information on where to make a purchase. The third

choice, which included an encouragement phrase, was an obvious

"commercial" which contained the announcer's endorsement of the games.

In determining whether encouragement was voluntary, each

announcer stating that he encouraged attendance was also asked to

indicate whether he was asked to do so, took the initiative to do so

himself, or whether both forces were in operation without one being most prominent. The findings from this question contributed to an

overall assessment of third-party influence.

Power to help or harm home attendance. Each broadcaster was asked if he thought he could help and hurt attendance at home games through his broadcasts. To further probe methods for affecting the home game through broadcasting, each announcer was asked to include his thoughts on how he could influence attendance in either direction.

The answers to these questions contributed to an overall perception of the announcer's acceptance or rejection of the role of

"salesman" and his self-appraisal of the power he held over box office sales. 114

8. Perception of the Audience

Perception of team loyalty, regular listenership, and demo­

graphics. Announcer Bob Prince referred to the partisanship of the

listening audience as being justification for his partisanship on the air.

To obtain an appraisal of the audience, each announcer was asked to respond to the question, "Do you think that play-by-play broadcasts such as you have done are intended primarily for fans of the team covered?" In addition, each respondent was asked to estimate the percentage of his audience comprised of the home fans.

To better clarify the announcer's concept of the audience to whom he broadcasted, each respondent was asked whether or not the majority of his listeners were "regulars." A "regular" was defined as one who listened to from one-third to one-half of the total broadcasts. Recognizing the difficulty that a complex estimate on

"regulars" might present, three choices were afforded each respondent: yes, no, and "hard to be certain."

Announcers equipped with data on the make-up of the audience might also have had a clear picture of specific persons or types of persons to whom they were describing the,games. So that this concept of audience perception could be tested, each announcer was asked if he held a specific picture of his audience or members of it. If so, he was asked to describe the picture he had.

Perception of audience baseball knowledge. There was no evidence in the literature that the baseball announcers had a reading 115

on the knowledge level of their listeners.

It would seem helpful for any communicator to understand the sophistication of his audience, especially where that communicator implemented specialized language, a set of rules, and a changing series of persons and statistics in his message.

The announcers were presented with a brief list of phrases which pertained to terminology, rules, statistics, and requests for identifying persons involved with the game. Each respondent was asked to place a check mark next to a phrase about which he believed his audience was knowledgeable. (The list, which may be found in

Appendix 2, was compiled with the help of announcers interviewed prior to the formulation of the questionnaire).

The findings from this survey made possible a better perception of audience sophistication to the daily messages.

Audience feedback and its effect. Negative feedback was considered as part of the job by the announcers. However, the acceptance of such criticism varied among them.

One announcer contended that there was a relationship between the standings of the team covered and the amount of negative feedback received by the announce)—a sort of "bearer of bad tidings" stigma.

But, he also added, that most of the baseball broadcasters developed a "thick skin" toward criticism and, thus, did not let the mail bother them. Nor was there any indication that announcers quit as a result of feedback.

To confirm or dispel the "bad tidings theory," each announcer 116

was asked if the amount of critical mail he received from listeners

was less when the team's place in the standings was higher.

In addition, to better assess the feeling of the overall

sample about negative feedback and their reaction to it, the announcers were asked: 1) if they had undergone periods of anger or discouragement when they received criticism from listeners; 2) to describe their reasons for the absence of anger or discouragement, or, if they were upset, how they overcame the feeling; 3) if they thought that most play-by-play announcers developed a "thick skin" toward criticism; 4) if they knew of announcers who quit because of negative feedback from listeners; and, 5) if they were ever dismissed because of pressure from the public.

9. Partiality

Frank, Durslag, Craig, and Barber criticized some announcers of local games for being partial to the teams they' covered while

Allen, Whitfield, Frick, and Coleman favored it with varying degrees of emotion. Since the opinions did not comprise the majority of the announcers who have broadcasted major league games, each announcer was presented with a situation designed to separate the partial from the impartial, namely, the following question: "In the late innings, when the home team being covered has an opportunity to put across the deciding runs, do you think an announcer should "pull for the team" on the air?"

It was also of interest to know whether those who admitted to favoring the team they covered had formal training in journalism— 117

training which acquainted them with the concept of impartiality.

Combining the data obtained in the survey of formal training with the responses on the question asked to determine partiality, brought a clearer indication of acceptance or abandonment of this journalistic principle.

An additional topic of interest was the ratio of club-employed announcers compared to others on the subject of partiality. Those employed by the team were believed to be partial in greater ratio than the others because financial success (through winning) by the team logically resulted in more security for the team and, thus, its employees--the announcer included.

10. The Work Setting

Some other aspects of the occupation of baseball announcing were not accorded sufficient space in the literature to permit evaluation. Included in these areas of limited knowledge were: hours in the work week; involvement in personal appearances; in-park working conditions; and, the importance, responsibilities, and relationship of the announcer's associate—the color man.

The data obtained from study of these areas were compiled for assessment of the announcer's health and attitude.

Work week. Whitfield cited a fourteen-hour day as common when he worked for the Washington Senators. To determine if this sort of work load was common, and if the length varied, each announcer was asked to estimate his total weekly work hours during a week when the team was playing at home and during a week when the 118

team was away. These estimates were to exclude travel time and work for which the announcer was paid by someone other than his employer for the broadcasts.

To determine if club-employed announcers were required to work longer hours than others, the findings from both groups of announcers were compared.

Personal appearances. Further evidence of the announcer's responsibilities was obtained by asking each respondent to estimate the number of personal appearances he made each month both during and after the season because of his association with baseball.

Whitfield wrote that he was expected to turn over to his employer all money received from these appearances. To determine if this was common, the announcers were asked to indicate if they received pay for personal appearances during the season and after the season. The possible responses were: no, Sometimes, and yes.

As in the case of work week, a comparison of club-employee responses and those of other announcers were compared to determine if, like Whitfield, the men employed by the teams had to make more appearances and were paid less frequently than others.

In-park working conditions. Because the announcers, like the players, faced different conditions in each park (sight lines, space, proximity to spectators), a survey was conducted in which the respondents selected the three best and three worst parks for broadcasting a baseball game. In addition, they were invited to write reasons for their choices. (A list of all parks used since 119

the beginning of broadcasting in the 1920s was included.)

The ranking and reasons were compiled to reveal an "ideal work atmosphere."

The color announcer. There was little information in the literature about the role of the color man.

So that some information could be acquired about this person who worked with the principal announcer during every broadcast, several areas were explored.

Each announcer was asked if the color man was necessary for a good baseball broadcast, and, if the answer was "yes," the respondent was asked if the principal announcer should have a voice in the selection.

Where announcers indicated that a color man was necessary, they were asked to describe the usual division of responsibilities.

This breakdown of chores was helpful in assessing the principal announcer's overall work load.

Continuing on the subject of selection, the announcers were asked if they have had a voice in selecting the color man, and, if so, whether this had occurred during the majority of their major league broadcasting years.

From these findings, it was possible to assess the importance of the principal announcer in the selection of the color man.

On the subject of hiring, each announcer was asked if it was best for the principal broadcaster and the color man to have the same employer. The choices for answering this question were: no, yes, and 120

"doesn't matter." The latter alternative was included to allow for the possible lack of importance of employer identity expressed by

Nahan as "it doesn't matter who pays you."

Finally, to learn if friction developed between principal announcer and color man, the announcers were asked if they knew of such confrontations, and, if so, what the cause was believed to be.’

11. Health and Leisure

Physical health. The literature indicated that extensive travel and irregular hours characterized the baseball broadcaster's schedule. But, none of the announcers interviewed prior to this study had been seriously ill.

To obtain a reading on the physical health of all men in this occupation, each announcer was asked if he had been ill to an extent that he was prevented from working for more than ten consecutive days and, if so, whether he believed the illness was caused, in full or in part, by the demands of the occupation.

In addition, the respondents were asked if they believed there were ailments common to those in baseball broadcasting. A list of ailments was requested from those answering in the affirmative.

In seeking further assessment of health, each announcer was asked to compare his health with that of other men his age who were not baseball broadcasters. The possible comparisons for the announcers to select were that their health was: the same, better, or worse than others.

The baseball broadcaster's life of travel was likely to 121

lack pattern-pattern which made possible regular exercise and

preferred diet.

To ascertain whether the announcers were interested in

maintaining a health discipline despite the lack of pattern, they

were asked if exercise and diet were important to them and, if so,

whether they were able to maintain their personal standard of

exercise and diet during the season.

The findings from these questions were of assistance in

assessing the overall health of men in this occupation.

Emotional health. Coleman referred to emotional stresses

(or "slumps"), stating that these were common to the announcer.

To aid in an evaluation of this part of an announcer's overall

health, each respondent was asked to make an assessment of his overall

happiness as either "very happy," "pretty happy," or "not too happy."

In addition, each was asked to describe his emotional make-up

in comparison with other persons, using the comparisons of: more

emotional than most, the same as most, or less emotional than most.

Further, to explore Coleman's theory of "slumps," each announcer was asked if he thought his occupation had a greater degree of personal happiness and discouragement than the "ups and downs" of most professions.

Leisure. There was no reference in the literature to the

leisure activities of the announcers. Because there was some measure of pressure operating on these men during their working hours, it would follow that importance in maintaining health would be placed on relief 122

of this pressure through leisure activity.

To identify leisure pursuits and to determine if these

changed after the baseball season ended, it was requested that each

announcer list his most frequent leisure time activities both during

and after the season.

To determine if this leisure took them away from large groups

of people, the activities were classified in two groups: 1) individual/

family/small group, and 2) large group.

To test the theory that the men in this public profession

selected pasttimes which took them away from large groups of people—

and were not "joiners"—each announcer was asked to indicate if he had membership in any of several types of organizations and, if so, whether

he held a leadership title. (Leadership titles, it was assumed,

required more time on the part of the holder)) Included in the types of organizations were: broadcasting, sports, fraternal, religious, civic, cultural, and political.

Within the structure of the above questions, religious and political organizations were subjects of additional probing.

Announcers were asked to indicate if they had a religious

preference and, if so, were also asked to check either Protestant,

Catholic, Jewish, or "other." (Additional space was provided to furnish additional information where the answer was "other.")

As for political involvement, each respondent was invited to assess his level of interest in political affairs as being either above average, average, or below average.

To determine the degree of interest and involvement, each was 123

asked if he was a registered voter, if he held a party preference, and

if he voted in the last election for president.

Those indicating above average interest and following it

with involvement through voting could be viewed as devoting at least

a part of their leisure in study of political happenings.

Finally, each announcer was asked if he thought that members

of his occupation had adequate time to pursue interests outside of

baseball. This question was asked to gain an overall impression

of the announcer's perception of his time for leisure interests.

Changes in attitudes and life style. It was conceivable that

arrival at the major league level of baseball broadcasting brought certain changes in attitudes and factors in the lives of the announcers. However, without further investigation, this could not

be substantiated.

To test this theory, a list of fourteen attitudes and life style factors were compiled with the help of the announcers themselves.

Among the attitudes and factors chosen for appraisal by the announcers were: 1) confidence in air travel, 2) consumption of alcohol, 3) closeness to family, 4) church attendance, 5) time for hobbies, 6) time for reading, 7) patience, 8) concern for other persons, 9) frequency of illness, 10) admiration for athletes,

11) love for baseball, 12) overall happiness, 13) being affected by criticism, and 14) financial security.

The items were arranged in a list with opportunities for checking one of three responses to each item: more, less, or no change. 124

It was theorized that life factors involving an expenditure of time (closeness to family, hobbies, church attendance, patience, and concern for other persons) might have experienced change.

Because air travel was the main mode of transportation for the teams and announcers, confidence in air travel was likely to have changed as well. And, due to the number of flights, reading might also have changed.

Admiration for athletes and love for baseball had likely changed for those who discovered that "familiarity breeds contempt."

Frequency of illness, financial security, the effect of criticism, and overall happiness were discussed in previous sections of this chapter.

12. Announcer Opinion on Selected Subjects Relating to the Occupation

An opinion poll on miscellaneous issues was conducted to afford a more complete portrayal of the announcer's appraisal of himself and his occupation.

FCC disclosure announcement. Whitfield discussed issues of third-party influence which some believed prompted the FCC inquiry and the requirement of an announcement disclosing such considerations

Some writers and broadcasters claimed that the announcement had no effect on the broadcasts.

In order to attain a complete sampling of announcers, each respondent was asked if such an announcement was made on his broadcasts, and, if so, whether it had altered his approach to 125

broadcasting a game. If the announcer responded that it had affected his approach to the broadcast, explanation was requested in the form of a short essay.

Further, each was asked if he thought the announcement had resulted in any changes having been made in the occupation, of sports broadcasting, and, if so, what form these changes had taken.

And, finally, to return to a consideration of audience, each announcer was asked if he thought listeners had become more skeptical of an announcer's honesty in cases where the announcement was made.

Existence of "the new breed" of announcer. Frank suggested that a new audience would not accept promotion-conscious announcers.

This statement prompted the question of whether there was a "new breed" of baseball announcers for this new audience.

The announcers were asked if they perceived a "new breed" having broadcasting philosophies which differed from those of the others and, if so, they were invited to describe these differences in short essay form.

Women play-by-play announcers. Kirkpatrick wrote that women had entered sports broadcasting in increasing numbers. To assess the announcer's opinion on the acceptance of women in baseball broadcasting, each was asked to indicate whether he believed that the majority of listeners to baseball broadcasts would be receptive to a woman play-by-play announcer on a regular basis. 126

Evaluation of self and colleagues. So that some impression

could be acquired of the announcer's perception of both his standing

and that of his colleagues in the occupation, each was asked if he

considered himself "among the best" at his craft.

To acquire the appraisal of colleagues, each was asked if

there was one or, perhaps, two announcers whose opinions were most

respected. Each person answering in the affirmative was invited to

name those announcers.

Finally, the announcers were asked to name the best of the

present baseball broadcasters. This selection process was the ultimate assessment of colleagues.

Expertise in franchise operation. Although an announcer has

likely been familiar enough with club operations to handle the task,

there was no record of a play-by-play announcer having operated a major league baseball franchise.

So that a reading was possible on the confidence among announcers in making the transition to management, the respondents were asked if they viewed their experience in baseball as qualifying them to operate a successful franchise. This question assumed that they were provided with the opportunity and that necessary financial backing was at hand.

In addition, responses of announcers most recently employed by teams were compared with other announcers to determine if the likelihood of closer contact with office operations resulted in more confidence as a prospective franchise operator. 127

Advice on training in the profession. Although the education

level and direction of the announcers was discussed in an earlier

section of this chapter, it was appropriate to learn what the

professionals recommended for aspiring broadcasters in the matters

of education and on-the-job training.

Each respondent was asked to choose which of several pieces of advice he would give an aspiring announcer. The choices were: college education, trade school, on-the-job training at a station, on-the-job training with a minor league club, and "other."

(Appropriate space was provided for those indicating "other" to offer supplementary explanation.)

In addition, to determine if specific routes could be recommended, each announcer was asked to indicate if it was essential for today's major league baseball announcer to have classroom training in broadcasting, in journalism, or to have a background in broadcasting.

The item on broadcasting background was suggested by one of the announcers who wondered if the sample felt that men without professional training (i.e. former players) could function within standards of the occupation.

Ideal traits. So that more characteristics of this profession and the men who work therein could be obtained, each announcer was invited to list traits important to success in the field.

The minor league announcer. Coleman noted that several major league play-by-play announcers began in the minor leagues rather than 128

making a rapid jump to the top.

Since there were more applicants than positions available,

it was appropriate to learn if the major league announcers had heard

minor league announcers who were good enough to gain access to the

major league level. If they had heard such announcers, the respondents

were asked to state an opinion on what kept the minor leaguer from

reaching the major leagues.

The opinions expressed supplemented other data pertinent to

what was advisable for success in the occupation.

Good and bad aspects of the job. In the preliminary

interviews, financial reward was cited as one of the good aspects of

the baseball broadcasting profession while insecurity and being away

from one's family were considered to be the drawbacks.

So that the complete sample could be represented, each of

the announcers was asked to list the more pleasant and unpleasant

aspects of his job.

Both the sections requesting announcer traits and the assessment of good and bad characteristics of the work were included

to reveal subjects of importance not covered by the study.

Hypothesi s

The hypothesis of the study was that, whether or not the announcers were partial to the team they covered, they would co-operate with the team in promotional endeavors and in presenting a positive

image of the team to the public.

Influence would come from the team since, even where it did not 129

hire the announcer, it had a voice in the selection--a voice which,

in most cases, required an announcement disclosing the fact of third-

party influence.

Despite this arrangement, the broadcasts would undergo no change in content.

Longevity and improved financial status would be related and the result of successful relationships between the announcer and the team.

Because they have a job of pressures, not only within internal channels but from the general public, the announcers would select leisure activities which would take them away from the atmosphere of having to meet the expectations of advertisers, stations, teams, and fans. Their leisure pursuits would be more likely to involve only them, their families, and small groups of people as opposed to large groups of people for whom there would be need of energy to perform.

The announcers, for the most part, would have realized an ambition which stemmed from the days when, as youngsters, they listened to sports broadcasts themselves. Most would have decided to enter the field of sports announcing prior to the completion of their formal education, but their training would not be likely to follow a common direction.

Having fulfilled this ambition and having acquired recognition by the general public, improved financial security, and associations with players, managers, and other celebrities—the announcers would predictably carry with them a general feeling of happiness with 130

their lot in life.

Although these were the primary hypotheses of the study,

the reader will recall that both the researcher and announcers and

authors have forwarded theories on various aspects of baseball

broadcasting which hâve also been tested.

All questions described in this section were included in a

twenty-page questionnaire distributed to working and non-working

principal announcers.

The findings from these questions will be presented in

Chapter IV using the same topical organization as in both this chapter and the one preceding. /3/

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Questionnaire Di stri buti on

Questionnaires were mailed to fifty-seven principal radio and television announcers. To receive consideration as a respondent, an announcer must have broadcasted major league baseball games on a day- to-day basis to a local audience. ' 1 1

Included in the fifty-seven announcers were thirty-three who were classified as "working" since they were broadcasting during the

1975 season. The remaining twenty-four were labeled "non-working," a term which was not meant to imply inactivity from sports, but rather, to describe an announcer who was not broadcasting major league games to a local audience during the 1975 season.

The questionnaires sent to both groups were identical except for alterations in tense as described in Chapter III.

The first mailing of questionnaires took place on May 15,

1975. As addresses of more announcers were acquired, more of the questionnaires were sent. None was sent later than June 30, 1975.

Second and third requests for the return of questionnaires were sent during June and July. The July request, citing the deadline for completion of August 18, 1975, included a "demographic sheet" which was designed to acquire basic personal and career data 132

from those who did not have time to complete the entire questionnaire.

The sheet, which encompassed one-fourth page of standard sized paper, requested the announcer's age, birthplace, number of seasons in the major league announcing profession, and asked whether or not the announcer held a college degree.

Response

Of the fifty-seven questionnaires sent, thirty-six were returned in completed form. Of the remaining twenty-one announcers not returning the questionnaires, eight returned the demographic sheet. (A comparison of the characteristics of the eight revealed no common age, educational, career, or geographic characteristics.)

Of the questionnaires sent to working announcers, nineteen of the thirty-three were completed. Of those sent to non-working announcers, seventeen of twenty-four were completed. Thus, thirty-six of the fifty-seven questionnaires represented a rate of return of

63 percent. (The lower percentage of return among working announcers was attributed to the fact that the questionnaires were sent and the deadline completed during the course of the 1975 season when those men were most involved with travel and occupational responsibilities.)

This result of the lower percentage among working announcers was supported by correspondence from two announcers who did not return the questionnaires. Both of them cited their busy schedules as the reason for not completing the items.

One of the two, a working announcer, stated in his reply:

I will be quite surprised if you get much response to your 133

effort here and will be curious to know whether or not you do, simply because I don't think there are many major league broadcasters at this time of year who have the time or inclination to be of help/

Nearly all of the respondents answered every item on the

questionnaire. Where appropriate, the number of "no answer" items

were Indicated in the description of the results.

Announcer Comments

On the last page of the questionnaire, space was allocated for comments by the respondents. Half of the announcers (eighteen of

thirty-six) includes some remarks. These remarks were classified

into four categories: 1) encouragement, 2) reaction to particular

items or subject areas, 3) constructive criticism, and 4) offer of advice for baseball broadcasters of the future.

Encouragement. Among the statements of encouragement were the following: "You nailed it down," "good survey, thorough," "you have covered everything," "your interest in the subject pleases me . . . it is the best questionnaire of this kind I have ever completed," and "grey questions, but good topical survey."

Reaction to particular items or subject areas. One announcer, reacting to a particular area of the questionnaire, explained that his "income figure is confidential." Another, apparently thinking of the topic of team influence said that he could not report secret injuries to players. He added that the players and

^Letter from working announcer, 18 June 1975. 134

their wiveswere hyper-sensitive, that no negative statistics could be broadcasted, and added, "don't tell 'em it's raining."

Another pair of announcers offered comments on their partic­ ipation in the study. One apologized for his lateness in responding' while another noted that he completed only those items which he thought applied to him.

Constructive criticism. Among the comments of constructive criticism were the following: "Should have covered community involvement, charity work, and personal visits," "A sports announcer cannot be developed from a table of statistics," "there are shades of grey in sane questions . . . some might be misinterpreted," and

"good probing job, but too lengthy . . . sometimes redundant or irrelevant to our business . . . hope response is good."

Advice to future broadcasters. Among the advice offered on the comment page were suggestions that::"libel courses in college are helpful," "broadcasters should develop skills in other areas of broadcasting to help security," and, "it's 50% getting the job, 30% doing it, and 20% holding it."

A presentation of the findings will follow, using the same topical order as in the previous two chapters.

Findings

1. Demographics

In all subject areas, the responses of working announcers 135

were proportional or nearly proportional to the responses of those

classified as non-working.

Geographic background. With the exception of Alaska and

Hawaii, all geographic regions of the United States were represented

in the birthplaces listed by the respondents. In thirty of the

thirty-six cases, the state of birthplace was also the region in

which the announcer lived during most of his childhood years.

Twelve of the thirty-six announcers were raised in the

southern states, eleven in the middle west, nine in the east, and

four in western states.

Table 3 shows a breakdown of the states within each

geographical region in which respondents were raised and the number

of announcers raised in each state.

The communities where the announcers were raised included

farms, small towns, and metropolitan areas—and, thus, a cross-

section. Table 4 presents a summary of community sizes and the

number of announcers from each.

Age. The age range varied greatly among the thirty-six respondents. The youngest announcer responding to the questionnaire was thirty-three years old while the eldest was seventy-seven.

Nearly half of the respondents, seventeen of thirty-six, were

between the ages of fifty and fifty-nine.

As a group, the working announcers were younger. Obviously, age was a factor of employment as demonstrated by the data which showed that several of the non-working announcers were over sixty-five 136

TABLE 3

GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND STATES IN WHICH ANNOUNCERS WERE RAISED

Geographic Region State No. of Announcers Raised in State

East ...... 9

Maryland 1 Massachusetts 1 Pennsylvania 3 New York 4

Middle West . . . . 11

Illinois 5 Iowa 2 Missouri 1 1 Oklahoma 1 Wisconsin 1

South ...... 12

Arkansas 1 Georgia 2 Kentucky 1 Mississippi 1 Texas 4 Virginia 3

West ...... 4

California 3 Washington 1

Totals 36 36 137

TABLE 4

SIZES OF COMMUNITIES IN WHICH ANNOUNCERS WERE RAISED

Community Size No. of Announcers (in Population) Raised in Size

Over'500,000 ...... 12

100,000 to 500,000 ...... 5

25,000 to 100,000 ...... 6

Less than 25,000 ...... 10

Farm, ranch, or open country ...... 3

Total...... 36

years ofageshad retired.* - .

Table 5 shows the age range of the respondents and includes a breakdown for both working and non-working groups of announcers.

TABLE 5

AGE RANGE OF RESPONDENTS IN WORKING AND NON-WORKING CLASSIFICATIONS

Age (in years) Working® Non-Working Total Announcers Announcers

Over 65 0 5 5 60-64 1 0 1 50-59 9 8 17 40-49 3 3 6 Under 40 5 1 6

Total 18 17 35

®0ne working announcer did not provide information 138

Economic background. Using the categories suggested by

Centers2 whereby stratification was based on the occupation of the father (or person charged with raising the children), it was found that the respondents came from a cross-section of economic backgrounds.

The "white collar" category, which Centers placed at the middle of his stratification ladder, was represented by the most families from which the announcers came: ten. Twelve of those responding to the questionnaire were classified above this middle status, and eleven were classified below the middle.

In addition there was one respondent whose father was an army officer and other whose father was a farmer. Since the Centers scale did not accommodate either of those two occupations, they were not included in the count. In addition, one respondent did not answer the item.

Table 6 includes the seven levels of stratification in the

Centers study of occupations and economics. Also included in the table is a description of the types of jobs Centers designated as indicative of each level. The number of respondents represented at each level of the scale may also be seen in the table.

Although the relationship between some of the occupations and the economic reward has changed since the original study in 1949, the representation within each classification was so similar that it was unlikely any revision would result in change from what appears to be a cross-section of economic backgrounds.

2Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer s ity Pres s? 1949), pp. 76-1OlT 139

aSOURCE: Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949), pp. 76-101.

^Responses of "army officer" and "farmer" could not be classified according to the definitions. In addition, one respondent did not complete the item. 140

TABLE 6

RESPONDENT REPRESENTATION IN THE CENTERS SCALE

OF OCCUPATIONS AND ECONOMIC STATUS3

Stratification Respondents Level Description® Represented

Business executives ...... 0 Persons owning or managing banks, factories, wholesale businesses, the larger retail businesses, etc.

Professionals ...... 6

Teachers, professors, lawyers, engineers, artists, writers, editors, and physicians

Small business...... 6

Owners and managers of smaller retail, service, and repair enterprises, contractors, and nonfarm proprietors of almost every other sort White-collar workers ...... 10 Clerical and technical workers such as stenographers, bookkeepers, typists, draftsmen, salespeople, and others whose work is primarily managerial and nonmanual Skilled manual ...... 6 Bricklayers, plumbers, machinists, locomotive engineers, printers, as well as foremen, and skilled service workers, such as cooks and barbers Semiskilled manual ...... 4 Truck drivers, machine operators, service-station attendants, waiters, countermen, and others whose work is primarily manual and involves a minor degree of skill Unskilled manual ...... 1 Lowest grade of workers in point of skill and responsibility: sweepers, porters, janitors, cleaners, construction laborers, bootblacks 141

TABLE 6—Continued

Stratification Respondents Level Description Represented

Total...... 33

aSOURCE: Richard Centers, The Psycdlogy of Social Classes (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949), pp. 76-101

^Responses of "army officer" and "farmer" could not be classified according to the definitions. In addition, one respondent did not complete the item.

Marital Status. Every announcer had been married and most were married at the time of the survey. Only three were not married during the summer of 1975 when the questionnaire was circulated.

One of the three had been divorced and not re-married while the other two were widowed.

All who were married indicated that they lived with their families in the city of the team they covered during the season.

This dispelled the notion of both a predominantly single group of men and married men living away from home during the season.

The statistics on marital status may be found in Table 7.

2. Development of Professional Life

Childhood interest and education. All but one of the thirty-six respondents indicated that, as youngsters, they were active participants in sports. In addition, thirty of the thirty-six were frequent listeners to sports broadcasts during their childhood 142

TABLE 7

ANNOUNCERS' MARITAL STATUS

Status No. of Announcers

Never married ...... 0

Now married...... 31

Divorced andr e-married ...... 2

Divorced and not re-married ...... 1

Separated...... 0

Widowed ...... 2

Total...... 36

years. (Three of the remaining six remarked that they were children during the time before radio had been developed.)

This childhood interest in sports, expressed by active participation and the vicarious experience from coverage by the electronic media, was given further intensity by the career ambitions conveyed in the findings.

Twenty of the thirty-six held an ambition of sports announcing as a youngster and sixteen of that twenty cited baseball as one of the sports they wanted to broadcast.

Further, twenty-three of thirty-six had decided on a career in sports announcing prior to the completion of their formal education and at ages ranging from eight to twenty-two years. 143

All of the announcers had completed high school, and all but

one indicated that he attended college.

Three-fourths of the respondents (twenty-seven of thirty-

six) attended college for at least two years and eighteen of the

twenty-seven earned at least one degree.

Table 8 shows the extent of the announcers' formal education.

TABLE 8

ANNOUNCERS' FORMAL EDUCATION

Level of formal education No. of Announcers

High school only...... 1

Less than one year of college .... 3

One year of college ...... 4

Two years of college ...... 5

Three years of college ...... 3

Four years of college ...... 16

Over four years of college ...... 4

Total...... 36

Of the eighteen announcers holding earned degrees, sixteen had either the Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree only, one held a Juris Doctua only, and one held the degrees of Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts, and Doctor of

Philosophy. 144

One of the announcers listed training from a broadcasting

trade school.and seven had additional education in a formal setting

during periods of service in the armed forces.

Only twelve of the thirty-six respondents indicated that

they had classroom training in broadcasting. As Table 9 illustrates, the majority of those having classroom training acquired it in college.

TABLE 9

ANNOUNCERS' CLASSROOM TRAINING IN BROADCASTING

Number of respondents having classroom training in

broadcasting ...... 12.of 36

Location of Training3 No. of Announcers

High school...... 1

College...... 11

Trade School...... 1

Armed Forces...... 1

Others...... 0

Total...... 14

aThere were two respondents listing two locations of training.

In contrast to the minority of respondents indicating classroom training in broadcasting, twenty of thirty-six announcers had classroom instruction in journalism. Seven had both broadcasting and journalism training. 145

As in the group of announcers indicating broadcasting training, the majority of the announcers having journalism in a classroom setting said that this had taken place during their college years.

Table 10 includes a breakdown of the location for the journalism training of the twenty announcers.

TABLE 10

ANNOUNCERS' CLASSROOM TRAINING IN JOURNALISM

Number of respondents having classroom training in

journalism ...... 20.of 36

Location of Training3 No. of Announcers

High School...... 10 College ...... 15 Trade School ...... 0

Armed Forces ...... 2 Others ...... 0

Total ...... 27

aThere were five respondents listing two locations and one listing three locations.

Two-thirds of the respondents, twenty-four of thirty-six, indicated that their first piay^by-fHay sports broadcast was on a commercial radio station.

Second in prominence was the educational radio station, the site of the first sportscast for six of the thirty-six. Although it 146

might be theorized that the educational station was a common ground

for the younger broadcasters, as was suggested by one of the announcers

interviewed prior to the study, four of the six who indicated an

educational station as the facility for their first play-by-play

broadcast were over forty-five years of age.

It was-conceivable, however, that future broadcasters would

be more likely to have gotten their initial experience on educational

stations since many facilities have been developed since the inception

of the Public Broadcast Act of 1967. This law provided for federal

aid to colleges and universities in their development of broadcast facilities.

In Chapter III, it was theorized that those indicating they

had been on a commercial network would likely be former players.

But, the four announcers listing commercial networks as their first experience were men who had never played professional baseball.

In fact, they were among the more experienced men in the sample.

Table 11 includes the breakdown of data pertaining to the facility of the announcer's first play-by-play sportscast.

Access to the major leagues. When asked how they acquired their first major league baseball broadcasting job, there was a variety of responses, mostof them recorded in brief phrases.

One-fourth of the respondents (nine of thirty-six) stated that "the job was open and I applied," or a similar response. Two others could be classified with the nine since they indicated they gained access through a live audition, part of a usual application. 147

TABLE 11

FACILITY OF THE ANNOUNCERS' FIRST PLAY-BY-PLAY SPORTSCASTS

Description of Facility No. of Announcers

Commercial radio station ...... 24

Commercial television station ...... 0

Educational radio station ...... 6

Educational television station ...... 0

Commercial radio network ...... 3

Commercial television network ...... 1

Armed Forces station or network ...... 0

Others ...... 0

Total ...... 36

Four announcers were employees of a station which acquired the rights to the broadcasts and, thus, gained entry without application.

The rest of the responses were varied. They included: "came from the playing ranks," "filled in when regular announcer was absent," "was writer covering team and knew those doing the hiring,"

"it was offered to me," "came from another sport," "heard elsewhere by the sponsor," "was friends with the influentials," "under contract to the network when rights were acquired," "heard by the owner,"

"persistence," "after years of experience,’’ and, "re-created a game between two teams in post-season playoffs and was heard by those influential in the hiring." Three announcers did not answer the item. 148

The prime age range for access to the major league level seemed to be twenty-five to thirty-nine. Twenty-five of the thirty- six announcers came to the major leagues during that fifteen-year period of their lives.

The age at which access was gained to the major leagues was slightly older than in past seasons, according to data obtained from the nine youngest and nine eldest respondents. Five of the nine eldest entered the major league level during their twenties.

But, none of the younger men had gained access during their twenties.

From this, it appeared that there was a longer period of internship required now than in the past.

Table 12 includes the range of ages among respondents when they gained access to the major league level of broadcasting as well as the range of the nine youngest and nine eldest announcers in their first seasons.

In comparing present ages of working broadcasters with the ages at which they began broadcasting, the range of potential occupational years encompassed over three decades. The earliest first season among the nineteen working broadcasters was age twenty-six with the eldest of the working broadcasters aged sixty.

Thus, there was a potential career length for today’s baseball broadcaster of over three decades.

Data on the actual length of each announcer's career are presented in the next section. 149

TABLE 12

AGE OF ANNOUNCERS IN FIRST YEAR OF MAJOR LEAGUE BROADCASTING

Age Range (in years) No. of Announcers

All respondents

20 - 24 ...... 3 25 - 29 ...... 6 30 - 34 ...... 10 35 - 39 9 40 - 44 ...... 5 45 - 49 ...... 1

Insufficient information ...... 2

Total ...... 36

Responses of the nine youngest announcers

20 - 24 ...... 0 25 - 29 ...... 0 30 - 34 5

35 - 39 ...... 4 40 - 44 ...... 0 45 - 49 ...... 0

Total ...... 9

Responses of the nine eldest announcers

20 — 24...... 2 25 - 29 ...... 3 30 - 34 ...... 2 35 - 39 0 40 - 44 ...... 1 Exact date not provided ...... 1

Total ...... 150

3. Longevity

In Chapter II, it was demonstrated that there was no apparent pattern of announcer longevity from franchise to franchise. However, when approaching the subject of longevity in total years of major league work (not total years with only one team), it was discovered that many announcers have established long careers in the broadcasting business—whether with one team or several.

As may be seen in Table 13, over half of the respondents, twenty-two of thirty-six, had at least one decade of experience.

In addition, twelve of those twenty-two had careers spanning at least twenty years.

TABLE 13

RESPONDENTS AND YEARS OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL BROADCASTING

Range of Years8 No. of Announcers

0-4 ...... 9 5-9 ...... 4 10-14...... 7 15-19 ...... 3 20-24 ...... 4 25-29 ...... 4 30-34 ...... 2 35-39 ...... 2

Total ...... 35

a0ne respondent did not supply necessary information.

In computing the number of changes in team made by each announcer during his major league career, it was discovered that a 151

majority (twenty-three of thirty-six) had not made a change. In fact, only six announcers had changed two or more times.

When weighing the findings in Table 14 with the data obtained on length of individual careers, it was seen that the longevity factor was excellent for most announcers.

TABLE 14

NUMBER OF CHANGES IN TEAM MADE BY THE ANNOUNCERS

DURING THEIR MAJOR LEAGUE CAREERS

Number of changes in team No. of Announcers

None...... 23

One...... 7

Two...... 3

Three...... 2

Four...... 1

Total...... 36

4. Financial Status

Salary. The financial reward for the announcers ranged widely. Half of the announcers responding to the item (seventeen of thirty-four) earned from $20,000-$50,000 while thirteen others earned from $50,000-$80,000. One of the remaining four who earned under

$20,000 indicated that this was his pay during his final year of broadcasting twenty years ago (1956).

The reason for the wide range of salaries wa? better 152

understood when compared with longevity.

Relationship of longevity to salary level. As in many occu­

pations, there appeared to be evidencethat the financial reward

increased with longevity.

When asked to estimate gross income derived only from

baseball broadcasting, the announcers provided data which showed that

as the years of experience-increased, the likelihood of having a

higher income also increased.

As may be seen in Table 15, seven of the twelve announcers

with twenty or more years of major league experience earned between

$50,000 and $80,000 from baseball broadcasting. Three showed earnings

of between $20,000 and $50,000, and the one remaining announcer

declined to provide an income figure.

TABLE 15

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND SALARY OF BASEBALL ANNOUNCERS

Range of No. of Under $20,000- $50,000- Over Years Announcers3 $20,000 $50,000 $80,000 $80,000

0-4 . . . 9 3 6 5 - 9 . . . 4 - 3 1 - 10 -14 . . 7 - 3 4 - 15 - 19 . . 3 - 3 - - 20 - 24 . . 4 - 1 3 - 25 - 29 . . 4 1 - 3 * 30 - 34 . . 1 - - 1 - 35 - 39 . . 2 T 1 1 -

Total . . 34 4 17 13 0

a0ne respondent did not give a figure while another did not list his years of experience for classification. 153

Length and type of contractual agreement. The written contract between the announcer and his employer was the most common form of agreement cited by the nineteen working announcers. Twelve of the nineteen held signed contracts at the time of the survey.

Half of the twelve were one-year in duration while the other half were multi-year.

Of the remaining seven announcers, four were employed by a verbal agreement for one season or several, and three listed "other" kinds of arrangements. The 'three did not furnish additional information.

In an attempt to determine if there had been trends in contractual arrangements, all announcers were asked to list the types of employer agreements they had completedJdufingitheirmajor league careers which, in some cases, had spanned four decades. Again, the one-year and multi-year contracts were the most common. In sixty-one of the seventy-eight agreements between announcer and employer, the signed contract was the method by which the agreement was finalized.

Thirty-seven of the sixty-one were one-year contracts while the remaining twenty-four were multi-year.

Thus, although most contracts were written, less than half were multi-year—the type affording the most security.

Types of other occupations and security. Because the baseball season spans only part of the calendar year, each announcer was asked to indicate other occupations. It was not surprising that the broadcasting of other sports events was the occupation cited the 154

most frequently. Of the nineteen working announcers, fourteen were

employed during the off-season in other sports broadcasting positions

Of the seventeen non-working announcers, thirteen were employed in

sports broadcasting at the time of the survey.

Football and were the most common sports cited by

the respondents. Thirty-three of the thirty-six announcers indicated that they had broadcasted football and basketball (at one time or at present).

As further indication of the tendency for the announcers to remain in sports, thirty of the thirty-six respondents said that at least 75 per cent of their occupational lives had been devoted to sportscasting. Twenty-three of the thirty had spent all of their occupational years in the field.

It should be added that, although twenty-six of the thirty- six indicated that they had held jobs besides sports announcing, in nearly all cases, these jobs were a part of their occupational lives prior to arriving at the major league level of broadcasting.

To better assess the necessity of off-season employment, each announcer was asked to indicate whether or not he felt he could earn what he would define as a "comfortable living" should his income be limited to baseball announcing only. Thirty-one of the thirty-six respondents said that earning such an income was posssible, four said that it was not possible, and one did not respond to the question.

Conversely, each announcer was asked whether or not he would be "hard pressed" for an income should the baseball team he was covering cease operation. Twenty-eight of the thirty-six announcers 155

stated that they would not be "hard pressed," six said that they would,

and two did not respond to the item.

These figures indicated that the position of baseball

broadcaster was likely one which either grew from associations in

other sports-related occupations or led to other occupations through

the associations in baseball broadcasting.

Thus, through associations in baseball and other sports,

security was strengthened so that the announcer had fewer concerns

when he lost one of his jobs. As one respondent wrote:

When I knew that the network baseball contract was concluding, I began to investigate other possibilities of a comparable nature. Meanwhile, I had other play-by-play assignments to do. Eventually, I accepted another offer. Basically, I tried to have many things going at all times, including baseball which is a lucrative contract, but not the only one. The more different sports one can announce, the more opportunities there are.3

Length of time required to find another job. A further

indication of the ability of the announcers to maintain occupational

stability was revealed in the responses to the question of how long each announcer spent looking for work after his last job.

As Table 16 shows, three-fourths of the respondents went directly from one job to another. Only four of the remaining nine announcers indicated that they had to search for other work.

Assessment of security in the occupation. Although the ability to find work seemed to be favorable for members of the group, twenty-three of the thirty-six announcers viewed their occupation as having less security than most other jobs. Eleven of

Response of Announcer, Questionnaire No. A-03. 156

TABLE 16

LENGTH GF SEARCH FOR EMPLOYMENT AFTER LAST JOB

Length of Search® No, of Announcers

Went from one job to another ...... 27

One to four weeks ...... 1

One to four months ...... 0

Longer than four months ...... 3

Total...... 31

®Two respondents indicated that they had retired after their last job, one had gone into semi-retirement, and two did not answer this item.

the thirty-six decided that theirs was an occupation having equal security with others while only two felt that baseball broadcasting offered more security than most other lines of work.

5. Identity of Baseball Broadcasting Employer

Before determining the influence of the profit-minded parties mentioned earlier in the writing-^-more-specifically, the club—it was important to determine to what extent each group was involved in the employment of the announcers.

The findings showed that fourteen announcers were employed by the stations, thirteen by the teams, and six by advertisers, one listed "other" employer identity and two did not answer the item.

A breakdown of the results may be found in Table 17.

It should be recalled that, in the literature pertaining to 157

TABLE 17

EMPLOYER IDENTITY3

Employer No. of Announcers

Station . ,...... 14

Ball club ...... 13

Adverti ser • • • • • 6

Other ...... T

Total . . . 34

aThe non-working announcers indicated their most recent employer. Two respondents did not complete the item.

hiring, the ball club has approval in many hiring situations. Thus, even though a ball club does not always pay the announcer, it may exert influence on his description of the games.

Asked which of the employers would be the most preferable to an announcer, there was a division of opinion.

As may be seen in Table 18, approximately one-third of the respondents said that it was best for an announcer to be employed by the station. Another third said that employment by the ball club was best. And, still another group suggested that the identity of the employer made no difference.

As might be expected, announcers employed by the ball clubs favored employment by the team on more occasions than they did employment by stations or advertisers. 158

TABLE 18

ANNOUNCER OPINION ON BEST EMPLOYER FOR ANNOUNCER®

Situation All Club-employed Announcers6 Announcers

Best to be employed by the ball club . . . 12 7

Best to be employed by the station . . . . 13 4

Best to be employed by the advertiser . . . 4 0

No one arrangement better than another . . 8 1

Total...... 37 12

aOne announcer indicated that the question was "too complex."

®Two respondents in the "all announcers" group had a pair of answers.

The respondents were divided on the question of whether the

ball club received better treatment on the air when it hired the announcer.

Table 19 demonstrates that, whether with club-employed announcers or not, there wasan approximate 50-50 split on the question

of whether employer identity made any difference. Nearly half of

the announcers apparently believed that "it makes no difference who

pays you."

6. Influence of the Ball Club, Actual and Perceived

Summoned "on the carpet." Being summoned by the employer or 159

TABLE 19

ANNOUNCER OPINION ON EMPLOYMENT BY TEAM AND RELATION

TO ON-AIR TREATMENT BY THE ANNOUNCER

Situation All Club-employed Anmouncers® Announcers

Club gets better treatment as the employer ...... 17 ’ 7

No difference in treatment from other employers . . 17 6

Total ...... 34 13

a0ne respondent stated simply "no" leaving his intent unclear. Another announcer said that the question was unfair.and did not respond. a representative of the employer for a specific remark made during the course of a broadcast was an action which was interpreted as a part of influence.

The figures in Table 20 show that over half of the announcers were summoned to discuss the on-air description. In addition, two resigned because of influence being placed on their broadcasts and nine (one-fourth) had been fired (for interference or other reasons).

Nearly all of the announcers who had resigned or been fired had been

summoned for meetings.

One announcer added that he had been "on the carpet" five times in forty years while another stated that he had been called to such a meeting six times in sixteen years. None of the other announcers gave any clues astto the number of times they were 160

TABLE 20

OCCASIONS OF ANNOUNCERS BEING SUMMONED BY EMPLOYERS,

FIRINGS, AND RESIGNATIONS

Situation No. of Announcers

Summoned3

Never summoned to employer ...... 16

Summoned to employer "on rare occasions" . . 17

Summoned to employer "frequently" ...... 2

Total ’...... 35

Firings

Number of 36 respondents having been fired . 8

Number of those fired who were summoned . . 7

Resignations

Number of 36 respondents having resigned because of restrictions having been placed on the broadcasts...... 2

Number of those resigning who were summoned ...... 2

30ne respondent answered "yes" but did not indicate whether on rare occasions or frequently. 161

called to a meeting.

Club-employed announcers were summoned, fired, and resigned

in approximately equal ratios with all other announcers.

On-air taboos and those perceived from the teams. Another

way of determining the influence of the ball clubs on the on-air

description was by ascertaining the personal taboos of the announcers

and comparing those with those they perceived from the ball clubs.

Each announcer was presented with situations which could

take place during a baseball broadcast. Items were those which

pertained to either observable occurrences or to statistics of fact which might result in embarrassment to the ball club. Each was asked to indicate if he would avoid mentioning the item on the air, and, if he thought the item would be taboo in the opinion of most

ball clubs.

Table 21 demonstrates that, with the exception of an incident

in which a political group carried a banner onto the field, none of the items was considered taboo by a majority of announcers. And, the announcers perceived no taboos from the teams in a majority of cases.

The only taboos with an important difference between personal and club perception were those involving the reporting of poor attendance, bad weather conditions, and the hurling of a bat into the stands by a player. In each of these cases, the announcers perceived more taboos from the teams than they held personally.

Of interest, also, was that there was virtually no 162

TABLE 21

ANNOUNCERS' PERSONAL ON-AIR TABOOS AND

THOSE PERCEIVED FROM BALL CLUBS

Situation Personal Perceived Taboo from Teams

Reporting a fight among fans in the stands at a home game . . . 10 12

Reporting a fight among fans in the stands at a road game . . . 10 11

Reporting that a player from the team you are covering has hurled a bat into the stands, injuring a spectator ...... 2 9

Reporting that a player from another team has hurled a bat into the stands, injuring a spectator ...... 2 8

Reporting a very small turnout for a home game ...... 1 11

Reporting bad weather conditions . . 1 10

Reporting the batting average of each player appearing in the game...... 0 1

Reporting the appearance on the field of a "streaker" ...... 10 10

Reporting the words on a banner carried onto the field by a political group ...... 27 16 163

no difference in the number of taboos on hurling the bat into the

stands or a fight.in the stands—regardless of which team was

involved, the one being covered or the opposition.

Barber's censure on batting averages by the Brooklyn Dodgers

appeared to lack credence today. Only one of the thirty-six

announcers perceived a taboo from the team and none held it as a

personal taboo.

There were some interesting statistics revealed by a

demographic breakdown on those citing taboos.

Table 22 shows that, among the announcers summoned to a

meeting by their employer for something said on the air, there was

a greater tendency to perceive taboos from the ball clubs than

among announcers who had not been summoned.

Announcers who were not employed by the ball clubs were more

likely to cite personal taboos. In fact, of the fifty-seven

votes of personal taboo, forty-two of them came from the announcers

who were not employed by the teams. (Twenty-three of the thirty-six

respondents were not employed by teams))

It was thought that announcers having formal training in

journalism might have displayed fewer taboos than those without

formal instruction. But, the twenty announcers having the formal

training registered far more personal taboos than did the eighteen without journalism in a classroom setting.

There was also importance in the perceived taboos cited by

the announcers who had the least experience. The group of nine announcers with less than five seasons of experience perceived more 164

TABLE 22

PERSONAL ON-AIR TABOOS AND THOSE PERCEIVED FROM BALL CLUBS

BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS OF ANNOUNCERS

Taboo from Teams

Summoned by employer

Total taboos cited by those summoned to a meeting with employer to discuss broadcasted material ...... 31 69 Total taboos by those not summoned ... 38 45

Identity of employer

Total taboos cited by those employed most recently by the ball club ...... 15 38

Total taboos cited by those not employed by the ball club...... 42 49

Journalism training

Total taboos cited by those with formal training in journalism ...... 40 54

Total taboos cited by those without formal training in journalism ..... 23 46

Years of experience

Total taboos by those with 1 - 5 years of experience...... 12 46 .-. . with 6-10 years...... 0 1 . . . with 11 - 15 years...... 10 12 . . . with 16 - 20 years...... 7 2 . . . with 21 - 25y ears...... 1 8 . . . with 26 - 30 years...... 6 4 . . .with Over 30 years...... 11 10 165

taboos from the ball clubs (forty-six taboos) than the remaining

twenty-seven announcers with more experience (thirty-seven taboos).

Thus, the men not employed by ball clubs seemed to record

more personal taboos while those with lesser experience (under five

seasons) were more likely to perceive taboos from the teams.

Associations with baseball personnel. Another potential

source of influence on the play-by-play description of the games was friendship with the participants or other persons involved in

the games. An announcer might, consciously or subconsciously,

try to protect friends.

Each announcer was asked to indicate if bethought that

his report of the game would be affected by a close friendship with:

1) specific players, 2)the field manager, 3) the general manager, and 4) the owner of the club.

Of interest in the results, shown in Table 23, was that the non-working announcers believed that any of the four friendships would affect the report. In contrast, the working announcers, in nearly the same ratio, stated the belief that the friendships would not affect the report.

Social and occupational associations. To obtain an approx­ imate reading on the likelihood of friendships developing, each announcer was asked to indicate which of several occupational groups was most important to his work, and also, which of several groups was most frequently a part of his social life. 166

TABLE 23

OPINION OF WORKING AND NON-WORKING ANNOUNCERS ON RELATION

OF FRIENDSHIP WITH PRINCIPAL FIGURES AND

THE ON-AIR REPORT

Question of friendship Working Non-Working Announcers Announcers

Would report be affected if the announcer had a close friendship with specific players?

Yes ...... 4 10

No ...... 14 5 No answer . . . 1 2

Total . . . . . 19

. . .with the field manager?

Yes ...... 5 10 No ...... 13 5 No answer . . . 1 2

Total . . . . . 19 17

. . . with the general manager?

Yes ...... 4 10 No ...... 14 5 No answer . . . 1 2

Total . . . . . 19 17

. . .with the owner? Yes ...... 4 10 No ...... 14 5 No answer . . . 1 2

Total ...... 19 17 167

Although there were several announcers who gave multiple answers, the players and managers/coaches were considered the most important groups to an announcer's work. But, other broadcasters and persons outside baseball and broadcasting were most frequently cite as common social comrades.

Thus, there appeared to be little justification for contending that subconscious or conscious influence resulted through social reinforcement by the most important group.

A complete breakdown of the data on this subject is presented in Table 24.

TABLE 24

OCCUPATIONAL GROUP MOST IMPORTANT TO ANNOUNCERS' WORK AND GROUP

MOST FREQUENTLY A PART OF THE ANNOUNCERS' SOCIAL LIFE

Most Important Frequently Part Occupational Group to Work of Social Liféa

Players ...... v 19 8 Field manager/coaches . . 19 11 General manager and front office staff ...... 7 3 Other broadcasters . . . . 6 14 Persons outside of base­ ball and broadcasting . 2 13 No one group more than another ...... 4 10 All of the above ...... 1 1

®There were a number of multiple answers. 168

7. The Announcer and Attendance

One benefit the ball club derived from the broadcast of its games was the "free plug" by the announcer—an announcement of home games in the near future or special promotions sponsored by the team in its effort to attract fans through the turnstiles.

In the survey questions pertaining to this subject, the announcers stated that, not only did they consider it a part of their responsibility to encourage attendance at the home games, but that they had the power to help or hurt the attendance at home games.

All but one of the thirty-six respondents indicated that they considered it a part of their job to announce the dates and starting times.

All but five felt that it was the announcer's responsibility to encourage home attendance. Only four of the thirty-six said that they were asked by the team toencourage attendance while fourteen did so on their own, and the remaining seventeen were both asked by the team and did so on their own—but not one more than another.

Over half (nineteen of thirty-six) indicated that, while announcing the upcoming home game dates and times, it was best to add some encouraging phrase such as "come on out and see this team."

The power the announcers felt they held on the attendance was demonstrated by the responses to questions on the ability to help or hurt traffic at the home gate. All but two said that they felt an announcer could help boost home attendance. All but seven stated that an announcer could hurt home attendance. 169

Only one announcer comnented on how attendance could be

boosted by an announcer, saying that the solution was "making the

game interesting." One indicated that "being negative" could hurt

the attendance.

8. Perception of the Audience

Perception of team loyalty, regular listenership, and

demographics. The listening/viewing audience, as perceived by the

announcers, was one comprised primarily of fans of the team being

covered. And, there was strong evidence that the announcers

believed these fans were regular listeners.

Of the thirty-six announcers surveyed, thirty-one stated that

they felt the play-by-play broadcasts were intended primarily for fans of the team being covered. In addition, twenty-nine of the thirty-six indicated that they believed at least 75 per cent of their

listeners were fans of that team. Thirty-one of thirty-six, a decided majority, contended that most of their listeners could be defined as "regulars" (i.e. listeners to between one-third and one- half of the games).

There appeared to be little evidence of the announcers' having a picture of a specific type of audience member to whom they were broadcasting. Although one insisted it was "a guy sitting in a chair holding a beer," twenty-seven of thirty-six (three-fourths) had no concept of a typical audience member. (The other relevant comments from the announcers pertaining to audience members were: "a fan who roots and wants to win," and "a blind boy told me 'you are my eyes.'" 170

Perception of audience baseball knowledge. Assuming that it was important for the announcer, in talking about the action on the field, to assess what knowledge the audience had of the game, each respondent was asked to indicate whether he believed the audience was sophisticated on one or more of a series of eleven baseball subjects. The range of these items included: the operation of a major league franchise, a recollection of past World Series games, the ground rules of the home team's park, and the names of managers of the other teams in the league.

There was little pattern revealed in the data. Although the announcers perceived the audience as being strong in the knowledge of the rule limiting the field manager's trips to the pitcher's mound, they considered the audience weak in knowing such rules as that for a "designated hitter" and the ground rules of the park where the team being covered held its games.

As for statistical information on individual players, the audience was considered to be strong in the knowledge of the batting averages of the home players, but weak in knowing anything about the players' prior baseball experience. j*

"The draft system," a term of significance to the admin­ istrative operation of a baseball franchise, was not viewed as having wide understanding among members of the audience. And, most announcers felt that the audience had little knowledge about the operation of a franchise.

Of interest was that the audience was perceived as being capable of naming each of the twelve managers in the league of the 171

team being covered, but not able to name the past ten World Series

winners.

Table 25 lists the various items about which the announcers

were asked to assess the audience knowledge and the number of

announcers from the sample of thirty-six who decided that the

audience had knowledge of the subject.

Audience feedback and its effects. There appeared to be some

connection between the amount of negative feedback from the audience

and the team's performance. Twenty-three of the thirty-six announcers

verified that they received less critical mail when the team's

standing was higher, two said they received more critical mail when

the team's standing was higher, and eleven said that they saw no

relationship.

The group of respondents appeared to be one which did not

let the critical mail bother them. Twenty-two of the thirty-six said

that they had never gone through periods of anger or discouragement after receiving criticism from listeners. The remaining fourteen verified that they had felt anger or discouragement.

One respondent had a unique method for handling criticism.

He wrote:

It was so infrequent that I usually called or wrote the listener to get more details if there was a criticism and invariably, the listener eased up becoming a friend and booster.4

Response of Announcer, Questionnaire Nô. A-03; 172

TABLE 25

ANNOUNCERS' PERCEPTION OF AUDIENCE BASEBALL KNOWLEDGE..

No. of Announcers Who Believed Audience Had Facet of Knowledge Knowledge of Subject

The term "suicide squeeze"...... 26

The batting averages of home-team players ...... 25

The number of times a manager is permitted to visit the pitcher's mound ...... 22

The next team that the home team will be playing .... 22

The managers of other teams in the league ...... 22

The prior baseball experience of players on the home team ...... 12

The World Series winners of the past decade ...... 8

The ground rules of the home team park...... 7

The operation of a major league franchise ...... 6

The rule for substituting for a "designated hitter" ... 5

The draft system ...... 4 173

The comments of those who were able to avoid discouragement

included the following: "consider the source of the criticism,"

"criticism is necessary for improvement," "I'm used to it," "I had been forewarned," "ignoring it is just a part of my physical make­ up," "I ignored it by positive thinking," and, "I didn't read the unsigned mail."

Included in the comments of those who experienced anger or discouragement but overcame it were: "I answered the writer,"

"talked with my wife," "asked for the opinion of qualified persons," and "learned to ignore them."

As to the effect this mail had on the announcers, it seemed to be a part of abroadcaster's make-up that he developed a "thick skin" toward criticism. In fact, twenty-six of the thirty-six respondents contended that this took place. Eight of the thirty-six said that there was no such insensitivity, one contended that some— but not all—developed a "thick skin," and one other replied that

"it was questionable."

There was further evidence of this "thick skin" when one considered that none of the thirty-six had ever been dismissed due to pressure from the public. However, three of the thirty-six said that they knew of announcers who had quit because of criticism from listeners.

9. Partiality

Given a situation in which the game was in the late innings and the team being covered by the announcer had the opportunity to 174

put across the deciding runs, seventeen of the thirty-six said that they would "pull for the home team" on the air, fifteen said that they would not, and three indicated that it was "hard to say." One announcer did not respond to the question.

This "seventeen-to-fifteen" figure was a surprise when one recalled the many articles cited in Chapter II which condemned the

"homer" who openly rooted for the home club. Here, presented with the ideal situation for some rooting by the announcer, not even a majority of the thirty-six announcers indicated that they would do so.

It might be theorized that the twenty announcers having formal training in journalism might be less likely to cheer for the home team because of the tenet of impartiality being a part of that instruction. However, eleven of the seventeen announcers saying that they would cheer for the home club had an instructional background in journalism.

It was thought that the announcers most recently employed by the ball club would be more likely to cheer for the home team in this crucial situation late in the game. But, of the seventeen announcers who stated that they would root for the home team, only four were club employees. (There were thirteen club-employed announcers in the sample of thirty-sixi)

10. The Work Setting

Work week. There was a wide range in the number of hours devoted to the occupation. One respondent stated that his work week 175

averaged seventy-eight hours. Others cited much lower figures.

Obviously, the responsibilities differed greatly among announcers.

The majority of respondents indicated an average work week of between thirty and sixty hours both when the team was at home and away from home. Club-employed announcers reported the same range, thus dispelling the thought that their hours would be longer.

Table 26 includes data on the work week for periods of time during which the team covered was at home and when it was on the road.

TABLE 26

ANNOUNCERS' AVERAGE WORK WEEK (IN HOURS)

WHEN TEAM COVERED IS HOME AND AWAY

No. of Announcers No. of Announcers Range of Hours Working the Range Working the Range Per Week When Team is Home When Team is Away from Home

Under 30 hours . ,...... 5 4

30 - 39 hours ...... 4 8

40 - 49 hours . ,...... 9 9 50 - 59 hours . ,...... 5 3 Over 60 hours ...... 6 5

No estimate given ,...... 7 7

Total...... ,...... 36 36

Personal appearances. The time-consuming responsibility of making personal appearances because of association with baseball was another factor of the work setting which was common--but to great degrees of variation in frequency of appearances. 176

During the season, a majority of announcers said that the number of personal appearances they made fell within the range of two to five per month. After the season, the range was much wider, and, thus, more difficult to assess. Twenty-two of the thirty-six announcers made personal appearances numbering anywhere from one to ten per month after the season was over.

Although it was theorized that club-employed announcers would find demands placed upon them to make more personal appearances than their collegaues, a check of their responses and comparison with the overall sample showed that the range within each group was the same.

Again, this illustrated the principle that the responsibilities among the announcers vary from one employment situation to another.

Table 27 shows the data for appearances by announcers both during and after the season.

TABLE 27

ANNOUNCERS’ PERSONAL APPEARANCES DURING AND AFTER THE SEASON

No. of Announcers No. of Announcers Number of Appearances Making the Range Making the Range Per Month of Appearances . of Appearances During the Season“ After the Season®

None ...... 1 3 1-3...... 17 7

4-6...... 12 11 7-9...... 2 3 10 or more...... 0 8

Total...... 32 32

aFour of the respondents did not answer either item. 177

Another point of interest concerned whether the announcers were paid for these personal appearances. It appeared to be a common practice. Twenty-three of the thirty-six announcers said that they were paid for appearances during the season. Twenty-six of the thirty- six indicated that they received compensation for appearances after the season. Again, the proportion of club-employed announcers receiving pay was no different from the overall sample.

In-park working conditions. Although not all announcers had occasion to broadcast from all of the ball parks, there were some interesting results in the voting for the three best and three worst parks from which to describe a game.

Recently-constructed stadia in the Los Angeles area (Anaheim

Stadium and ) were rated the highest in the voting with two older parks, in Detroit and in Boston, tied for third. The overall sample judged these four parks as the best from which to broadcast.

Ironically, Tiger Stadium was also rated as one of the three worst parks. It tied with Yankee Stadium in New York as the worst with another older park, White Sox Park in Chicago, third in the voting.

It was interesting to note that the most frequent reasons for rating a park as the best were the same criteria for rating a park the worst: proximity to the field, facilities for broadcasting, and amount of room in the announcing booth. 178

A breakdown of each park having been used during the careers

of the announcers, number of announcers having broadcasted from each

park, number of positive and negative votes accorded each park, and

a breakdown of reasons for selecting a park as best or worst may be read in Appendix 3.

The color announcer. There was little important data avail­ able from literature about the man who assists the principal announcer on the broadcasts—the color manf’

One point of inquiry answered by the survey was that most of the announcers, thirty-two of thirty-six, considered the color man essential to the broadcast.

It was not at all surprising that twenty-eight of the thirty- two announcers considering the color man as essential felt that the principal announcer should have a hand in his selection. Of the entire sample of thirty-six, twenty-three said that they did have a voice in the selection process. And, seventeen of those twenty-three indicated that this had happened in a majority of cases.

There was little importance in the fact that twenty-four of the thirty-six announcers felt that it was best for the two men to have the same employer, regardless of identity. It appeared to be nothing more than a convenience.

Understandably, there were occasions when friction developed between the two men. Thirty-two of the thirty-six announcers stated that they knew of such instances and suggested that the most common causes of such conflicts were: jealousy, a personality clash, or the 179

ambition on the part of the color announcer.

Not much could be learned about the color man's responsibilities or what qualities made for a good color man.

Some announcers suggested that the two announcers share the nine innings with the principal announcer having the first and last three innings of description. Another suggested that a four-two-three arrangement was best with the color man calling the play-by-play for the two innings. Still another suggested no pattern of innings.

One respondent emphasized that there should be "no top billing" while another contended just as strongly that the principal announcer should have the control in the broadcast.

Obviously, the two must work together to bring about an effective broadcast. But, beyond that, little could be learned of this relationship and its importance. Thus, the work load of the principal announcer on the air could not be evaluated.

It seemed that the pattern to the principal broadcaster, working with him for a large number of games (as many as 180 in some cases), must be capable of "making a marriage" of the on-air relationship. Because of this necessity for the two to work together smoothly, the interaction between the two—both on- and off-air- warranted further investigation. The data derived from this study may serve as a springboard to such investigation.

11. Health and Leisure

Physical health. As a group, the announcers have maintained good health. 180

Asked if they had experienced any illness during their careers which impaired their working for more than ten days, thirty-one of the thirty-six respondents said "no." Of the five who had been ill, two said that they felt the illness was caused in full or in part by their occupation.

Asked if they thought that baseball announcers were likely to have a common physical ailment, thirty of the thirty-six replied "no," five said "yes," and one did not answer. Of the five answering in the affirmative, the ailments cited were: bad throat, backaches, stomach disorder from tension, ulcers, high blood pressure, colds, and sinus difficulties. Bad throat and backaches were cited by two announcers.

The remaining ailments were listed by only one announcer.

Twenty of the thirty-six announcers stated that they considered their health to be better than other men their age who were not baseball broadcasters. Fifteen of the thirty-six viewed their health as being the same. One said that he thought it was worse.

To ascertain the priorities the announcers placed on maintaining their health, they were asked to evaluate the importance and their own performance in two subject areas: exercise and diet.

Of the group of thirty-six, thirty indicated that regular exercise was important to them. Twenty-one of the thirty said that they were able to obtain the exercise they required, seven said they were not, two had no further response.

On the subject of maintaining a particular diet, twenty-nine of the thirty-six said that this aspect of their life was important to them. Nineteen of the twenty-nine said that they were able to 181

maintain preferable diet habits during the season, seven said they were not, two had no response, and one replied, "it varies."

Emotional health. Presented with variables of "very happy,"

"pretty happy," and "not too happy" to describe their present state in life, two-thirds of the announcers (twenty-four of thirty-six) indicated that they were "very happy." One-fourth (nine of thirty- six) described themselves as being "pretty happy" while two respondents said that they were "not too happy." One respondent gave no answer.

It should be mentioned that the wording of the question, "How would you describe your overall happiness?" was not changed in tense for the non-working announcers. It was possible that some members of the non-working group considered their past careers as play-by-play announcers in the formulation of that answer while others did not.

Statistics on the announcers' appraisal of personal happiness are shown in Table 28.

TABLE 28

ANNOUNCERS' PERCEPTION OF PERSONAL HAPPINESS

Description of Happiness No. of No. of Working Non-Worki ng Announcers Announcers®

Very Happy ...... 15 9 Pretty Happy ...... , . . . . 3 6 Not Too Happy ...... , . . . . 1 1

Total ...... 19 16

a0ne of the non-working announcers did not respond to the item. 182

Asked to indicate an assessment of their emotional make-up,

twenty of the thirty-six appraised themselves as the same as most

persons, twelve said that they were more emotional than most persons,

and four said that they were less emotional.

It was concluded from earlier evidence that the announcers

were a happy group of persons (in most cases). But, there was also an indication of a "hills and valleys" effect which Coleman termed as

"slumps."

Twenty-one of the thirty-six respondents said that it was their opinion that the baseball announcer had greater degrees of

happiness and discouragement than men in most professions, fourteen said that this was not true, and one did not answer.

Leisure activities. Each announcer was asked to list his

leisure activities during and after the season. The hypothesis that these pasttimes would be the kind which would take him away from the busy atmosphere of the work setting was upheld. Very few of the announcers chose activities in which they were placed in contact with large groups of the public.

Table 29 demonstrates the predominance of individual, family, or small group kinds of activities over those calling for energy to be expended toward interaction with large groups.

Although not all activities were capable of being categorized as small group or large group; such as swimming, most could reasonably be classified as belonging to the individual/family/small 183

aNearly all respondents listed more than one activity both during and after the season. 184

TABLE 29

ANNOUNCERS' LEISURE ACTIVITIES DURING AND AFTER THE SEASON

Activity No. of Announcers No. of Announcers Listing Activity Listing Activity as Common during as Common after the Season® the Season®

Indivldual/Family/Small Group

Golf...... 17 15

Reading...... 10 12

Tennis...... 7 5

Swimming...... 5 4

Family...... 4 4

Writing...... 3 3

Gardening...... 3 3

Exercise...... 2 2

Painting...... 2 2

Boating...... 2 1

Music...... 1 3

Minor §ports...... 1 3

Sunbathing...... 1 0

Photography...... 1 2

Watching television ...... 1 1

Flying...... 1 1

Farming...... 1 1

Yard work...... 1 0

Bird hunting...... 0 1 18S

TABLE 29—Conti nued

Activity No. of Announcers No. of Announcers Listing Acvitity Listing Activity as Common during as Common after the Season? the Season3

Individual/Family/Small Group, cont.

Poker ...... 0 1

Model railroads . . . 0 1

Biking ...... 0 1

Walking ...... 0 1

Cards ...... 0 1

Bridge ...... 0 1

Running ...... 0 1

Friends ...... 0 1

Large Groups

Movies ...... 2 1

Church activities . . 1 2

School activities . . 1 2

Visiting hospitals . • • • 1 0

Coaching ...... 1 1

Theatre ...... 1 1

Drinking/chasing women . . 1 0

Bowling ...... 0 1

Speaking ...... 0 1

aNearly all respondents listed more than one activity both during and after the season. 186

group list.

Movies and theatre may or may not have involved large groups depending upon the location and attendance. Drinking/chasing women, expressed in the same phrase, tended to suggest an activity which occurred in public places—at least at the outset. For this reason, it was classified as a "large group" activity.

There was practically no difference between activities enjoyed during the season and those after the season.

Golf and reading were the most popular activities both during and after the season. Because half of the announcer’s schedule calls for games away from the home city—and most of those at night—golf and reading were among the two easier afternoon activities which were capable of being adapted to the schedule.

In the study of membership in organizations, twenty-nine of the thirty-six respondents indicated that they held membership in at least broadcasting or generic broadcasting organization.

The one most frequently cited was the Baseball Broadcasters Association of America of which sixteen of the twenty-nine listed membership.

Fifteen indicated that they were members of the American Federation of Television and Radio Announcers (AFTRA).

State and local broadcasting and sportscasting associations were among the groups cited by a handful of respondents. A breakdown of all responses may be found in Table 30.

There was little representation of the broadcasters in those organizations which dealt with sports only and had no direct relation to the business of broadcasting. Only nine of the thirty-six 187

TABLE 30

ANNOUNCERS' MEMBERSHIP IN SPORTS BROADCASTING AND

GENERIC BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

Type of Organization® No. of Announcers

Baseball Broadcasters Association of America ...... 16

American Federation of Television and Radio Announcers...... 15

State or local broadcasting associations ...... 8 National sportscasting associations ...... 4

State sportscasting associations ...... 3

Screen Actors Guild...... 3

®There were several responses indicating more than one membership.

indicated membership in such sports organizations as touchdown clubs, golf associations, writers' associations, or old-timer baseball groups.

Only fourteen of the thirty-six announcers listed membership in fraternal organizations. The group most frequently cited was the

Masonic Lodge of which four were members. Other fraternal organizations listed included: Lions, Eagles, Shrine, Elks, American Legion, and such social fraternities as Delta Tau Delta, Sigma Delta Chi, and Sigma Nu.

In addition, one listed the academic fraternity of .

Twenty-one of the thirty-six respondents listed membership in a church or synagogue. Fourteen said that they held no membership while two did not respond to the question.

Twenty-six of the thirty-six indicated that they had a religious preference. The religious preference most frequently cited was Protestant (nineteen of thirty-six). Eight indicated the Catholic 188

church as their preference while one checked the blank marked "other"

but furnished no further explanation.

Table 31 includes a breakdown of the religious preferences.

TABLE 31

RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES OF ANNOUNCERS

Religious Group No. of Announcersa

Protestant ...... 19

Catholic ...... 8

Other ...... 1

Jewish ...... 0

Total ...... 28

aAlthough 26 indicated a religious preference, 2 who did not complete the section on specific preferences bringing the total of responses to 28.

Four of the thirty-six respondents indicated that they worked with charities. The charities represented were: Boys Club, Knothole

Gang (service to boys), Kid Glove (service to boys), and the Hutch

Cancer Fund.

One respondent indicated membership in the symphony and opera guilds in his community.

The announcers were involved in political affairs to the extent that all were registered voters and nearly all (thirty-two of thirty-

six) voted in the most recent presidential election (1972). Just over

half (twenty of thirty-six) declared a party preference. 189

Half of the sample (eighteen of thirty-six) saw their level

of interest in politics as being "above average." This implied at

least a portion of their leisure time was devoted to keeping abreast

on political developments. However, this was not substantiated by the

questions asked in the questionnaire.

Table 32 presents a breakdown on the responses to all questions

of political interest.

All thirty-six announcers maintained that they had adequate

time to pursue interests outside of baseball. However, as demonstrated,

these interests did not include involvement in organizations.

The sports broadcasting and generic broadcasting organizations, along with the churches, were the only groups with over 50 per cent representation. Of the twenty-one indicating membership in a church, four added that they have held or presently had a leadership title.

Of the many sports and generic broadcasting organizations listed by a total of twenty-nine respondents, there were six announcers who held or presently had leadership titles. This indicated a moderate rate of involvement in organizations by only a few of the respondents.

The rest were members only—and there were few of those in most organizations categorized for study.

Changes in attitudes and life style. Asked to compare their attitudes and selected factors in their lives prior to entering major league broadcasting with those same attitudes and factors after reaching the major league level, only four areas seemed to change: financial security, time for reading, time for hobbies, and admiration 190

TABLE 32

INVOLVEMENT OF ANNOUNCERS IN POLITICS

Subject No. of Announcers

Voter registration

Registered...... 36

Not registered ...... 0

Total...... 36

Level of interest in politics

Above average ...... 18

Average...... 14

Below average ...... 4

Total...... 36

Choice of party preference

Announcers having a party preference ...... 20

Announcers having nop artyp reference ...... 13

Total...... 33®

Voting behavior in the last presidential election (1972)

Voted in last election...... 32

Did not vote in last election ...... 4

Total 36

aThree announcers did not respond to the question of party preference. 191

for athletes.

As for financial security, two-thirds of the announcers surveyed (twenty-four of thirty-six) responded that they enjoyed more financial security upon reaching the major league level of broadcasting than they had experienced prior to that time. Nine of the respondents indicated that there had been "no change" while one said he had less financial security.

Although a dozen announcers saw no change in the time they had for reading once they arrived at the major league level, seventeen stated that they had more time.

A clue to the life of the major league announcer, one which involves much travel and waiting and idle time away from home, was revealed by the statistics which showed that the announcers have less time for hobbies (unless the hobby was reading). Fifteen of the thirty-six announcers said that they had less time for hobbies than they did before reaching the major league level. Another fifteen indicated that they had noticed no change, however. The remaining six stated that they had more time. Of course, this time factor should be remembered in the context of earlier data which showed that the nature of the responsibilities, and, thus, time required of each announcer, varied greatly from one employment situation to another.

Of curiosity was that a surprisingly high number (thirteen of thirty-six) held less admiration for athletes than they had prior to reaching the major leagues. For this minority—though a sizable one— it was apparent that "familiarity bred contempt." 192

Although it was theorized that there would be change in

activities requiring time (closeness to family, hobbies, church

attendance, patience, and concern for other persons), the data

revealed that this was not entirely true. There was decided change

in time available for hobbies, closeness to family, and patience.

But, a majority of respondents reported no change in church attendance nor concern for other persons.

There was no important change in such factors as confidence

in air travel, being affected by criticism, and frequency of illness.

Table 33 contains a list of the items mentioned above and others to which respondents were asked to indicate either a direction of change, or no change at all.

12. Announcer Opinion on Subjects Relating to the Occupation

FCC disclosure announcement. According to the majority of the announcers who were working at the time of the survey, the much- discussed disclosure announcement required of some announcers by the

FCC had little effect on their broadcasts. Fifteen of the nineteen working announcers indicated that the announcement was being used on their broadcasts, but, all fifteen added that it had no effect on their approach to the broadcast. (Only six of the seventeen non­ working announcers had used announcements like the disclosure announcement. All six said it had no effect on their approach to the description.)

Asked if the legislation had any effect on the occupation of 193

aSeveral respondents answered only part of the items, Totals in most items reflect lack of one or two responses. 194

TABLE 33

DEGREE OF CHANGE IN ATTITUDES AND LIFE STYLE FROM PRE-MAJOR

LEAGUE DAYS CITED BY THE ANNOUNCERS

No. Ann'rs No. Ann'rs No. Ann’rs Attitude or life style Total Indicating Indicating Indicating factor Changesa Mores Less3 * * 6 * N* o* 1C0 h1a1nge3

Financial security ... 25 9 24 1 * Time for reading .... 23 .12

17 6 Time for hobbies .... 21 15

6 15

Closeness to family ... 19 16

10 9 Patiende...... 19 15

10 9

Admiration for athletes . 18 17

5 13

Love for baseball .... 17 17

15 2 Overall happiness .... 16 19

12 4 Confidence in air travel 14 21

13 1 Church attendance .... 13 22

2 11

Concern for other persons 13 22

11 2

Affected by criticism . . 10 23

4 6 Consumption of alcohol . 9 26 6 3 19g

TABLE 33—Continued

No. Ann'rs No. Ann'rs No. Ann'rs Attitude or life style Total Indicating Indicatina Indicating factor Changes3 More3 Less3 No Change3

Frequency of illness . 3 ...... 32

1 2

aSeveral respondents answered only part of the items. Totals in most items reflect lack of one or two responses. sportscasting, twenty-nine said that it had not, three contended that

it had, and four had no answer. Two of the non-working announcers stated that the low made it possible for a more objective report of the games.

Asked if they thought that listeners were more skeptical of the honesty of the announcer where the announcement was made, twenty-five said that they were not, four indicated that they thought they were more skeptical, and seven did not respond.

The "new breed" of announcer. There was some evidence that the announcers perceived a "new breed" of broadcaster on the scene.

Twenty-two of the thirty-six men responding to the questionnaire said that they saw a "new breed" of announcer on the scene while fourteen said that they did not see any difference between the new announcers and those already established in baseball broadcasting.

Among the announcer comments on the difference between the new breed and the established announcers were assertions that the new breed was "more critical . . . honest . . . candid . . . and 196

objective." But, also, there were accusations that this group of

announcers gave "the appearance of being accurate reporters, but

are more concerned with opinions than facts, and are simply more

outspoken."

The most frequently used phrase to describe a difference

between this new group of announcers and the established ones was that the new breed did "more reporting." However, this phrase was used by only three of the twenty-two announcers who perceived the existence of such a group.

Of interest was that, in all questions where responses were compared, the younger announcers did not differ importantly in their answers from the older announcers.

Women play-by-play announcers. The data revealed that the announcers, all males, did not see female play-by-play announcers as having a ready acceptance among the members of the audience for baseball broadcasts. Thirty of the thirty-six respondents felt that the audience would not be receptive to a woman in the role of play- by-play announcer, two maintained that a woman could gain acceptance, three had no answer, and one said it was too early to say for sure.

Self-evaluation and evalutation of colleagues. Se1f-esteem was high among the baseball broadcasters. Twenty-seven of the thirty- six announcers (75 per cent) stated that they were among the better announcers in the business, four said that they were not among the better announcers, one commented that he "wasn't yet," one said "I hope so," and three gave no answer. 197

One announcer seemed to speak for his colleagues saying, "All

announcers believe they are among the better ones. I had good success

in the field, so I felt I must have been doing something right."5

Within the fraternity of baseball broadcasters, it appeared that there were a handful of men whose opinions were most respected. Twenty- four of the thirty-six announcers said that there were one or two announcers who ranked high in opinion leadership. Asked to name these announcers whose opinions they felt were most respected, Vin Scully was listed fourteen times, Ernieterwell was named nine times. Several of the respondents voted for more than one.

Each announcer was asked to name the man whom he thought to be the best announcer in baseball. Twenty-one of the thirty-six named

Scully. Second in the balloting was who was named five times. Again, some respondents voted for more than one.

Experience in franchise operation. The familiarity that an announcer would have in franchise operation, being closer to that phase of baseball than most laymen, did not impart a confidence in personal ability to operate a successful team. Twenty of the thirty- six respondents said that they were not confident of their ability to operate a viable franchise, fifteen said that they could, and one did not answer. There was no relationship between being employer by a ball club (and, thus, having a closer relationship to the day-to-day operations in the office area) and demonstrating a confidence to

Response of Announcer, Questionnaire No. A-03. 198

operate a club.

Training in the profession. Despite the differences in age, geography, education, and the route taken by the announcers, thirty of thirty-six agreed that a college education was an appropriate starting point for a solid background. (All but one of the announcers attended college.) Others suggested on-the-job training either with a station or a minor league team.

Only eleven of the thirty-six respondents considered classroom training in broadcasting as essential to the career and the same number viewed journalism training as essential. But, as for a broadcasting background, one of the prime arguments of those claiming there are too many former players in the broadcasting booth, twenty-six of the thirty-six viewed a professional background as essential. (Four of the thirty-six in the sample were former players.)

Ideal traits. Knowledge was listed as the most important factor for the success of a baseball broadcaster. Seventeen of the thirty-six broadcasters surveyed, when asked to list the ideal traits of an announcer, responded with that single word.

Other characteristics mentioned by more than one announcer were: humor (cited by five announcers), enthusiasm (four), accuracy

(four), quickness (three), news-sense (two), concentration (two), sincerity (two), and colorful language (two).

The minor league announcer. Few of the major league announcers knew of any minor league announcers who were of major league calibre. 199

Only fourteen of the thirty-six indicated that they were familiar with prospects for the "step up" to the big leagues. Asked why those minor league announcers had not made the step as yet, the most frequent comment was "they haven't gotten a break."

Sixteen of the thirty-six announcers said that they didn't know of minor league announcers of major league calibre, three said they had not been able to judge since they had not been able to hear any of them, and three did not respond to the item.

Good and bad aspects of the job. Their associations with other persons were viewed as the pleasant part of the occupation by twenty of thirty-six. Eleven added that they considered travel to be another of the more pleasant aspects of the job.'

Other responses by more than one announcer included: recognition (eight), "a job that T like" (seven)’, bringing enjoyment to listeners (three), each day being different (three), good pay

(two), challenging work (two), good hours (two), love for the game

(two), and happy atmosphere (two).

Ironically, eleven of the respondents considered travel to be one of the more unpleasant parts of the job. In fact, travel was the most frequently mentioned unpleasant aspect.

Other responses pertaining to drawbacks of the job as cited by more than one announcer were: "away from home and family" (five), losing teams (four), long hours (three), uncertainty (two), and regimented schedule (two).

A summary of this study, conclusions drawn from these 200

findings, and suggestions for further study will be presented in

Chapter V. <2o/

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Summary

From the very early days of radio broadcasting, the description of major league baseball games have been among the more

popular types of programs.

The relationship between the ball clubs and broadcast stations developed along similar lines with both radio and television.

During the period of technical development, baseball broadcasts were a common experimental program. With the increase in set ownership, many of the club owners were fearful that the presence of microphones and later cameras would cause attendance to decline. As more teams permitted broadcasts and privilege fees climbed, broadcasting became an important source of income for the club. With this financial consideration, added to the promotional value'broadcasts provided, play-by-play descriptions of the games finally gained full acceptance by the teams.

The broadcasts were also financially important to the stations hoping for favorable audience statistics with which to lure sponsors.

The advertisers, of course, were hopeful of reaching the audience with their messages and, thus, increasing product sales. 202

The main goals of these economic factions were realized

through the man who handled the description of much of the action--

the principal play-by-play announcer.

The importance of his position was shown in a model. This model, which may be seen in Chapter I, showed the relationship of

the announcer to the ball club, station, and advertiser. Further,

it illustrated that all three of these economic factions wereccounting on the announcer to reach the target of their financial hopes.

From the listeners and viewers the ball club wanted to increase its receipts at the gate through paid admissions, the station wanted to

be able to demonstrate a large audience to prospective advertisers, and the advertisers themselves were interested in increased product sales.

Little could be learned about this central person, the announcer, since the available literature was comprised of a few histories, memoirs, and scholarly studies. The literature did suggest that there were instances of influence on the description of the games exerted by the clubowners, and that the announcers were "pitchmen" for the teams in that they promoted home attendance and performed other services for the benefit of the team, and, in many cases, were partial toward the team in their description of the game.

To test the contentions of the literature and to explore other aspects of the occupation such as longevity, financial security, background and training, job responsibilities, their percention of 203

the audience, health, and personal life—a study was conducted of

the major league baseball principal play-by-play announcers who had

broadcasted games to local radio and/or television audiences.

(The study was limited to those broadcasting to local audiences to properly test the concept of partiality—a characteristic which was normally absent from the national network broadcasts.)

Hypothesis

The overall hypothesis stated that the announcers would be co-operative with the team in promotional endeavors and would present a positive image of the team to the public. It was theorized that longevity and improved financial status were related and were achieved through successful relationships between announcers and teams.

Because of the pressures of their work, it was thought that announcers would select leisure activities which would take then from large groups of people into settings where they were either alone, with family, or other small groups.

In the belief that the announcers, for the most part, had realized a childhood ambition, it was theorized that most would have decided to enter the field before the completion of their education, but that their training would not necessarily follow a common direction.

Finally, it was felt^the announcers would be a happy group of individuals owing to the realization of a childhood ambition, recognition by the general public, improved financial security, and associations with celebrities. 204

The Sample

The study consisted of preliminary interviews with several announcers and a survey of all announcers fulfilling the criteria discussed above. The survey questions were framed from data acquired from available literature and from the interviews.

A questionnaire of twenty pages in length was sent to fifty- seven principal announcers. Of the thirty-six questionnaires returned, nineteen came from announcers who were broadcasting games to local audiences during the 1975 season and seventeen who had done broadcasts in previous seasons.

The findings from the important areas of inquiry are suranarized below.

Demographics

All geographic regions of the United States were represented in the sample with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. A theory that announcers came from the midwest was dispelled since the data showed twelve of the thirty-six came from southern states and eleven from the midwest. The communities where the announcers were raised varied from metropolitan areas to towns of less than 25,000 persons.

The age range varied from the youngest of thirty-three to the eldest who was seventy-seven. The majority of respondents were between the ages of forty and sixty.

The announcers came from a cross-section of economic backgrounds, as determined by Richard Centers' research technique of stratification according to the occupation of parent or guardian. 205

Thus, there appeared to be no relationship between economic background and su-cess in reaching the major league level.

Every announcer had been married and most were married at the time of the survey. One of the three not married at the time of the study had been divorced and not re-married while the other two were widowed.

Development of Professional Life

The announcers demonstrated a marked interest in sports from childhood.

All but one indicated active participation'inrsports as a youngster. Nearly all were frequent listeners to sports broadcasts as children. This interest in sports, expressed through active participation and the vicarious experience from coverage by the electronic media was given further intensity by the fact that nearly two-thirds had decided on a sports announcing career prior to the completion of their formal education.

The group was a well-educated one with all but one having attended college and half holding at least one earned degree. Aside from that, there was no specialized training common to the group.

Most members of the sample broadcasted their first play-by- play sports events on commercial radio stations.

There were a number of different ways by which the announcers gained access to the major league microphone. The most common was through application and audition. The prime age range for access to the major league level was twenty-five to thirty-nine. 206

In comparing present ages of working broadcasters with the

ages at which they began broadcasting, the range of potential

occupational years encompassed over three decades.

Longevity

Over half of the broadcasters had at least a decade of

experience. In addition, twelve of the thirty-six (one-third) had

careers spanning at least twenty years.

As for stability, it was discovered that a majority had not made any geographic changes after reaching the major leagues.

Financial Status

The salary of announcers ranged from under $20,000 to $80,000

per season (for baseball broadcasting only).

There was a relationship between salary level and years of

experience with those in the $50,000-$80,000 range more likely to have

fewer than twenty years of experience.

The written contract between the announcer and his employer was the most common form of agreement with the length of contract varying from one season to several.

Most of the announcers said that they would be able to earn

"a comfortable living" if their incomes were limited to baseball

broadcasting only—and, most added that they would not be "hard pressed" for an income should the baseball team they were covering fold operation. It was likely that the alternative occupation, should the team have folded, would have been in sports since most had spent 207

at least 75 per cent of their occupational lives in sportscasting.

Three-fourths of the respondents had spent all of their working years in the field.

After their, last job, three-fourths of the group made a transfer to another position immediately, but, in comparison with other jobs, security was viewed as less than that of others jobs by over half of the sample.

Identity of Baseball Broadcasting Employer

Although the ball club usually had a voice in approving an announcer, it was the actual employer in only thirteen cases.

Fourteen of the sample of thirty-six were hired by the stations, six by advertisers, and the other three did not provide sufficient information for evaluation.

The announcers were divided on which employer was the best for members of their occupation with the ratio being approximately one-third selecting for the team, one-third for the station, and one-third claiming that it made no difference.

Approximately half of the announcers maintained that the team received more favorable treatment on the air from the broadcaster when it did the hiring while most of the remaining respondents claimed that it made no difference. This lent weight to the contention of writers and broadcasters that "it doesn't matter who pays you."

Influence of the Ball Club, . ; "'•erceive- Actual and Perceive?

As for the pressure exerted by the employer, over half said 208

that they had been summoned by an employer or his representative to a

meeting for the purpose of discussing remarks made during the

broadcasts. The rest said that it had never happened to them.

In canparing their own taboos of occurrences or statistics

which might embarrass the club with the taboos perceived by the

announcers from the teams, only an incident involving a political

banner being carried onto the field was viewed as taboo by the

announcers—and none of the occurrences or statistics was viewed

by the majority of announcers as taboo to the ball clubs.

Announcers employed by the teams had fewer personal taboos

than the others while those with less than five years of experience

were more likely to perceive taboos from the ball clubs than the more experienced men.

In addition, announcers summoned "on the carpet" were more

likely to perceive taboos from the ball clubs than those who had

never been summoned. And, the twenty announcers having formal

training in journalism—training which would foster the concept of

independence in reporting and avoidance of third-party ties where

possible—registered far more personal taboo votes than did the eighteen who did not have journalism instruction.

Most of the working announcers believed that close friendships with persons involved in baseball games (players, field managers, general managers, and owners) would affect the game report while most of the working announcers contended that it would not affect the report at all. Although players and managers were viewed as the most 209

important groups of persons for the announcer’s work, the most

frequent social companions of announcers were other broadcasters and

persons outside of baseball and broadcasting.

Thus, there did not appear to be justification for the

contention that conscious or subconscious influence resulted through

social reinforcement by the most important group.

The Announcer and Attendance

All but one of the announcers considered it a part of the job

to announce dates and starting times for upcoming home games. And,

all but five felt it was the announcer's responsibility to encourage

home attendance. Thus, there was no rejection of the role of

salesman.

Only four said that they were asked to encourage attendance,

fourteen said they encouraged attendance on their own, and the rest

said it was some of both but not one more than the other.

The sample concluded that the announcers had the power both

to help and hurt attendance at home games.

Perception of the Audience

It was the opinion of the majority of the announcers that

their broadcasts were designed primarily for fans of the team they covered and that these fans comprised at least 75 per cent of the audience. These fans were also perceived to be "regular" listeners

in that they heard at least one-third to one-half of the total

broadcasts. Other than this, there was little evidence that the 210

announcers'-had a picture of a specific type of audience member.

There was no apparent pattern in the facets of knowledge among the listening audience as perceived by the communicators who framed their daily messages. On some items relating to rules, facts, or statistics, the audience was perceived as knowledgeable. But, on other selected rules, facts, and statistics, they were not.

The announcers found a relationship between the amount of critical mail they received and the team's performance. In most cases, the poorer the team's showing in the standings, the more critical mail was received. Although a majority of the respondents indicated that most announcers were "thick skinned" to criticism, over one-third admitted that they had gone through periods of anger and discouragement after having received criticism from fans. None had been fined or quit because of public pressure but three said they knew of cases where announcers had resigned.

Partiality

Given a situation in which the team they were covering had the chance to put across the deciding runs late in the game, nearly half of the announcers stated that they felt it would be all right for an announcer to "pull for the home team." The rest said that they would not recommend the practice.

Of those saying that they would root for the home team, over half had formal training in journalism—training which acquainted them with the concept of impartiality. 211

The Work Setting

The announcer's responsibilities varied from one employment

situation to another. The average work week during the season,

including time spent on the air, ranged from thirty to sixty hours

both at hone and away. Personal appearances:were common although

the number ranged from none to eight per month during the season

and none to over ten per month after the season. A majority of

the announcers were paid for these appearances.

The data for announcers employed by the teams did not

differ in proportion from those of the other announcers, dispelling

a thought that the club-employed announcers might work longer hours

and receive pay less frequently for personal appearances.

In appraisal of the better locations for broadcasting,

the announcers did not favor new parks over old ones. Two newer

stadia in California (Dodger Stadium and Anaheim Stadium) and a pair

of older parks (Fenway Park in Boston and Tiger Stadium in Detroit) were selected as the best. Three older stadia (Tiger Stadium in

Detroit, Yankee Stadium in New York, and White Sox Park in Chicago) were selected as the three worst. The main criteria for selection to

both the best and worst categories were: proximity of broadcast area to the field, facilities available, and amount of room in the broadcast booth.

Little data of importance could be obtained about the "color man" or associate announcer. Most of the announcers considered him essential and felt that the principal announcer should have a hand in 212

his selection. Over half did have a voice in selection most of the

time. Most thought it was best for the principal and the color

announcers to have the same employer, largely, it was believed, for

convenience.

A majority of the announcers indicated that friction had

occurred between principals and color men largely because of

professional jealousy, personality clashes, or ambition on the part

of the color announcer. There was little consistency in the

breakdown of responsibilities between the two men.

Health and Leisure

The sample was a healthy one. Only five of the thirty-six

had ever been from work for more than ten days because of illness.

There was a recognition among most members of the group that exercise and maintaining a preferred diet were important and a majority of then found it possible to maintain a preferred program of exercise and diet during the season.

Presented with variables of "very happy," "pretty happy," and "not so happy," to describe their present state in life, two- thirds said that they were "very happy."

Asked to indicate an assessment of their emotional make-up, over half appraised themselves as the same as most persons.

A "hills and valleys" phenomenon was apparent to over half of the announcers who maintained that members of their occupational group experienced greater degrees of happiness and discouragement 213

than most persons.

Golf, reading, and other activities not normally calling for the announcers to be with large groups of people were the most popular kinds of leisure activities cited.

The sample was not comprised of "joiners." Although twenty- nine of the thirty-six had membership in at least one sports broad­ casting or generic broadcasting organization, there was only limited representation in other kinds of associations.

Over half held a religious preference and were members of the church of that preference.

All were registered voters with over half declaring a party preference and half appraising their level of interest in politics as "above average." Nearly all of the respondents voted in the most recent Presidential election (1972).

All announcers maintained that they had adequatettime to pursue interests outside of baseball.

Asked to compare their attitudes and selected factors of their personal lives prior to entering major league broadcasting with those same attitudes and factors after reaching the major league level, only three areas seemed to experience important change: financial security increased, the time for reading increased, and time for hobbies decreased.

Although it was theorized that there would be change in activities requiring time (closeness to family, hobbies, church attendance, patience, and concern for other persons), the data 214

revealed that this was not true. There was. decided change in time

for hobbies, closeness to family, and patience. But, a majority of

respondents reported no change in church attendance and concern for

other persons.

There was no important change in confidence in air travel,

being affected by criticism, nor frequency of illness.

Of interest was that thirteen of the thirty-six indicated

that their admiration for athletes had lessened since reaching the major leagues.

Announcer Opinion on Selected Subjects Relating to the Occupation

According to the announcers, the FCC disclosure announcement-

I designed to acquaint the listeners with the existence of significant thirty-party influence in the hiring of the announcer or his payment- had no effect on the broadcasts, on sportscasting in general, nor on listener perception of honesty in the account of the game.

There was some perception of a new breed of announcer. Most comments from the announcers verifying the existence of the new breed twenty-two of thirty-six, referred to the group as having a different approach in their report of the game. Some calledtit "more honest" while others referred to it as "more opinionated."

Women play-by-play announcers were not accorded a good fore­ cast for a future in the occupation by thirty of the thirty-six respondents. That number claimed that a woman would not gain ready acceptance by the audience. 215

Three-fourths of the announcers stated that they felt they were "among the better announcers" in baseball broadcasting. Asked to name those announcers whose opinions were most respected, Vin Scully

(Los Angeles Dodgers) and Ernie Harwell (Detroit Tigers) were chosen most frequently while Scully was named by over half as the "best broadcaster."

There was no evidence that the closeness each announcer had with the operation of the teams gave him confidence in his ability to operate a successful franchise. .Even club-employed announcers did not demonstrate a degree of confidence in operating a team when their responses were compared with other announcers.

College education was suggested as the best route to the major leagues by most, but, it should be recalled that all but one of the respondents had attended college and half had at least one earned degree. Only twenty-six of thirty-six saw a professional broadcasting background as essential to success in the field while only eleven viewed formal training in broadcasting and journalism as essential.

In a survey requesting a list of preferable characteristics, knowledge was listed as the most important factor for the success of a baseball broadcaster.

Although only fourteen of the thirty-six announcers knew of minor league announcers who were of major league calibre, "not getting a break" was suggested as the main reason the minor league announcers were still in the minor leagues. 216

The association with other persons was viewed as the pleasant

part of the occupation by the most respondents. Travel was listed as

the pleasant part by some, and unpleasant by others.

Conclusions

1. In most cases, the announcer was a salesman for the ball

club.

Although the literature portrayed announcers as partisans,

it was found that under half of those studied favored a policy of

cheering for the home team in a crucial situation.

However, all of the announcers were cognitive of the goals of

the team not only on the field, but at the box office. In fact, nearly

all of them considered it a part of their responsibility to assist the

home team in increasing home attendance by encouraging ticket sales

for home games. This promotion ofattendnace was accomplished either

by the announcer's choice or upon request of the baseball team—

a third-party which usually maintained a voice in the hiring process.

Thus, as a group, the announcers did not fit the journalistic definition of reporter, but, rather, a general definition of salesman.

In this role of salesman, the announcers accumulated enough

persuasive power that they could attest to an ability to affect the attendance at home games. In helping "sell" the product of baseball,

it followed that their treatment of on-field events would be positive.

When presented with situations which might embarrass the team, three- fourths of the respondents indicated that there were subjects they would personally label as taboo. 217

At some time during their careers, half of the announcers were

summoned to meetings with their employers or representatives of their

employers to discuss remarks made during the broadcasts. However,

incidents of firing were few and resignation of announcers usually

occurred when an announcer moved to another position—movement which

was, itself, infrequent.

Although announcers were employed by stations, advertisers, or

teams, nearly half of them contended that "it doesn't matter who pays

you," a theory expressed by announcer Stu Nahan. In effect, these

announcers were saying that the promotional benefit of the broadcasts

were the same for the team regardless of who was paying the announcer.

Oddly enough, the findings demonstrated that the announcers paid by

the team tended to be more impartial than other announcers.

The influence of the team was reflected by the fact that well

over half (fifteen of nineteen) of the announcers who broadcasted

games during the 1975 season were required to include the FCC disclosure announcement which told of third-party ties. The announcers agreed,

however, that the announcement did not alter the content of the

broadcast, their approach to the broadcast, nor did they perceive any

skepticism on the part of the audience toward the report.

2. Most members of the audience did not appear to demand a journalistic description.

The broadcast of games appeared to be a part of popular culture which did not require the same standards of journalism as the report of news. The announcers perception of the audience, an audience from 218

whom they received considerable feedback, was that it was comprised

of regular listeners who were for the most part, fans of the team

being covered. Thus, most members of the audience did not seem to

demand an objective approach. Nor was there importance in the

findings which showed:that persons with journalism background who described the games tended to reject those principles. That data would have significance, however, were there an indication that the

audience expected a baseball broadcast to be handled as accurately

as a news report.

There was an indication of a "new breed" of announcer who might display a closer tie toward traditional journalistic principles,

but, because there was no important difference between the responses of the newer announcers and the veterans, further investigation would be required to determine if the "new breed" was existent.

3. Despite encountering pressures from several sources, the announcers demonstrated a mastery of these forces.

The announcers felt pressures of having to please the audience, sponsors, stations, and teams while maintaining smooth relationships with such persons as players, managers, and color men.

Although these pressures posed problems for some, causing them occasional "slumps," anger, and discouragement, the men proved c “ themselves capable of handling the atmosphere. This capacity was reflected in data which showed they retained strong family ties, professional self-esteem, and good physical and emotional health even though most communicated all or part of 180 games each year, 219

traveled tens of thousands of miles, made personal appearances, and,

often worked more than the "forty hour week."

Part of this coping with the pressure was through leisure

activity which found them involved in quiet, relaxing endeavors in which they were more likely to be alone, with their families, or other small groups. With the exception of their affiliation with

sports broadcasting and religious organizations, the sample was not comprised of "joiners"—even though they contended that they did have time for pursuing other interests outside of baseball.

4. The work setting was found to be pleasant and comfortable.

The announcers saw their work setting as a happy one. The apparent reason for this was, regardless of geographic or economic background, most of them had dreamed of broadcasting sports since the days of their youth when they were listeners to sports events. A majority of them made plans for a career in sports announcing before finishing school, geared their decisions pertaining to education toward that end, and supplemented their education with on-air experience in commercial radio stations. Although they realized their ambitions in different:ways(audition, blind luck, having celebrity status, being a former player), this achievement, combined with the satisfaction of improved financial security, recognition by the general public, and enjoyable associations with celebrities resulted in a general feeling of happiness.

Despite reaching celebrity status themselves, their lives had not changed radically in attitudes or style in comparison with the 220

period of time prior to their arrival at the major league level of

broadcasting.

This pleasant atmosphere showed potential of being sustained

for many years as was reflected by some announcers who had called major league games for over three decades. There was a tendency for

salaries to be what most persons would consider "above average," for

these salaries to increase with experience, and for associations to result in additional opportunities for earning. Longevity, of course, was strengthened by pleasing the other parties having interest in the broadcasts (stations, teams, advertisers, fans).

5. The announcers were well-educated and informed.

Although most admitted that having college training was not a requisite for their work, all but one of the respondents had attended college, half held at least one degree, and most suggested college as an advisable pattern4,to follow in preparing for a career in sports. A professional background was also suggested.

The group was well-read. This was not only reflected in their need to remain informed on the sport, but also by the interest many of the announcers expressed in political affairs. Knowledge of the sport was one trait listed most frequently by the announcers as essential to success—despite notions of the average layman that voice and delivery would be most important.

There were students of their profession in that they were aware of their colleagues and their performances, and of issues pertaining to their field (FCC disclosure announcement, rise of women broadcasters, 221

and "the new breed").

Suggestions for Further Study

Several areas remained open to question and, thus, required

further study.

In this study, there were rarely cases where one particular

sub-group differed from another in their responses. But, in the

item pertaining to friendships with managers, players, owners, and generals managers, and the resulting effect on the report, the non-working announcers said that such alliances would work an effect on the game description while the working announcers said it would not. There was absolutely no indication in any of the other answers pertaining to outside influence on the report than these two sub­ groups differed. More interviews might determine if this was a significant difference between the two groups or if the one-sided responses were prompted by misinterpretation of the question.

Part of this research examined the position of the principal play-by-play announcer in an economic context using the announcer's own perceptions. It was uncertain whether his perceptions agreed with other members of the economic marriage: stations, ball clubs, and advertisers. Although the overall goal was satisfaction of the economic goals of the three groups and the entertainment and information needs of the fans, it was likely that the three economic parties might differ in their opinion on how this task was best accomplished and what freedoms the announcers should have.

Little was know about the types of contracts and clauses in 222

contracts which existed between announcer and employer. Because these

were normally private agreements, it might have been difficult to

obtain documentation. But, a successful effort would result in more

being understood about the expectations and responsibilities of the announcer.

One accidental discovery was that the announcer felt that he could help or hurt attendance. Although it was logical that this was done through ihe broadcast, little was known about the way this power was expressed in phraseology or tone. Nor, has there been any documentation of attendance trends in relation to particular announcers.

Some announcers might have a greater success potential in building a crowd than others. Researchers who are familiar with Chi squares and other statistical techniques could easily acquire the necessary data and arrive at a numerical value for each team and its announcers over the seasons.

The study showed that "homers" were less prominent than the literature on the subject suggested. Further questions of both announcers and writers of this literature which would focus on their motivations and philosophy as well as the types of coverage inherent with both media might help clarify the discrepancy between the literature and the findings of this study. Perhaps professional jealousy was the cause’for the publicity going to the "homer" announcers over others.

On the subject of critical mail, it would be helpful to interview persons from other professions (newsmen, politicians, and 223

and others who might receive critical mail) to discover if there was

emotional involvement prevalent among their listeners or constituents

as there appeared to be among the listeners to baseball broadcasts.

The "bearer of bad tidings" theory may be a phenomenon not exclusive

to sports.

Some members of the sample perceived a "new breed" of

announcer. This subject was touched on briefly but seemed to warrant

further study since the comments about the new breed reflected a

perceived rebellion by newer announcers against the "don't rock the

boat" philosophy which, in some occupations, contributed to

longevity.

Peer influence among announcers was another area which could

be explored. This study would be helpful in determining if there was

pressure on the newer arrivals to adapt to a pattern of "major league

behavior." This study demonstrated that financial security became

stronger upon reaching the big leagues, but, what about other factors?

Did those announcers changing in their attitudes of admiration for athletes and personal life facets such as closeness to family and consumption of alcohol do so as a part of pressure from their new peers?

Although the literature suggested that the presence of more

"jock announcers" (former players in the broadcast booth) caused turbulence within the occupation, only four of those broadcasting during the 1975 season could be so classified. However, further exploration into trends and the number of announcers having been 224

replaced by "jock announcers" in the role of color men might be of considerable significance when viewing the broadcast team as a whole.

Finally, a comparison of principal play-by-play baseball announcers broadcasting to local audiences with announcers from other sports might reveal contrasts and similarities of interest in making an evaluation of sports broadcasting as a profession and as a factor of popular culture. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Allen, Mel., with FitzgeraId, Ed. You Can't Beat the Hours. New York: Harper and Row, 1964'.

Banning, William Peck. Commercial Broadcasting Pioneer. The WEAF Experiment: 1922-1926. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1946.

Barber, Red. The Broadcasters. New York: The Dial Press, 1970.

Barnouw, Erik. A Tower in Babel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Boyd, F. Fraser. Introduction to Journalism. New York: The MacMi11 an Company, 1961.

Caplow, Theodore. The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

Centers, Richard. The Psychology of Social Classes. Princeton, New Jersey : Princeton University Press, 1949.

Coleman, Ken. So You Want to Be a Sportscaster. New York: Hawthorn Books, Ï973.

Cope, Myron. Broken Cigars. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal1, Inc., 1968.

Danzig, Allison., and Reichier, Joe. The History of Baseball. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959.

Frick, Ford C. Games, Asterisks, and People. New York: Crown Pubii shers, 1973.

Gross, Ben. I Looked and Listened. New York: Random House, 1954.

Head, Sidney. Broadcasting in America, 2nd ed. Boston: Houqhton Mifflin, 1972.

Johnson, William 0. Super Spectator and the Electric Lilliputians. Bos ton : Li ttle, Brown, and Company, 1971.

Koppett, Leonard. All About Baseball. New York: Quadrangle Publishing, Ì974. 226

Liehty, Lawrence W., and Topping, Malachi C. American Broadcasting: A Source Book on the History of Radio and TV. New York: Hastings House, 1975.

Mann, Jack. The Deci ine and Fall of the New York Yankees. New York Si mon and Schuster, 1967.

Mayer, Martin. About Television. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

St. John, Robert. Encyclopedia of Radio and Television Broadcasting Mi1waukee: Cathedral Square, 1967.

Shecter, Leonard. The Jocks. New York: Paperback Library, 1970.

Voigt, David Quentin. American Baseball, 2 vols. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1966-1970.

Warner, Harry P. Radio and Television Rights. New York: Matthew Bender, 1937!

Whitfield, Shelby. Kiss It Goodby. New York: Abelard-Schuman Ltd., 1973.

Broadcasts

NBC-TV. "Tomorrow," 11 December 1975.

WJR. "Detroit Tiger Baseball," 3 September 1975.

Congressional Hearings

U. S. Congress. House. Anti-trust Subcommittee of the Judiciary. Orqanized Professional Team Sports, 85th Conq., 1st sess., W!------

U. S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power of Committee on the Judiciary. Study of Monopoly Power, Pt. 6, Organized Baseball, 82nd Cong."," 1st sess., 1952.

U. S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on Anti-trust and Monopoly of Committee on the Judiciary. Organized Professional Team Sports. 85th Cong., 2nd sess.,1958. 227

FCC Documents

FCC Docket No. 19773. Washington, D. C.: Federal Communications Commission, 1973.

FCC 74-868, 18659. Washington, D. C.: Federal Communications Comission, 1973

Interviews

Announcer No. 1. Interview. 15 September 1974.

Announcer No. 2. Interview. 12 August 1975.

Announcer No. 3. Interview. 9 June 1975.

Announcer No. 4. Interview. 21 August 1975.

Periodicals

Broadcasting. 6 March 1961; 5 March 1962; 4 March 1963; 24 Eebruary 1964; 1 March 1965; 28 February 1966; 20 February 1967; 19 February 1968; 17 February 1969; 9 February 1970; 22 February 1971; 28 February 1972; 26 February 1973; 25 February 1974; 3 March 1975.

Craig, Jack. "SporTView." The Sporting News, 6 April 1974, p. 58.

Durslaq, Melvin. "I Don't Care Who Wins, as Long as We Do." TV Guide, 17 May 1975, pp. 21-23.

______. "We Pause for a Confession from Our Announcer." TV Guide, 23 November 1974, pp. 39-40.

Frank, Stanley. "Play Ball." TV Guide, 17 January 1970, pp. 7-9.

Gould, Jack. "Red Barber: Foul Play at the Ball Park." New York Times, 9 October 1966, p. D-21.

Kirkpatricks Curry. "Getting Into the Picture." .Sports Illustrated, 21 April 1975, pp. 85-96.

Kirshenbaum, Jerry. "And Here to Bring You the Play by Play ..." Sports Illustrated, 30 August 1971, pp. 32-43. 228

Leggett, William. "No Knock on Woods in Boston." Sports Illustrated, 25 August 1975, p. 35.

' "Testing a Not So Golden Rule." Sports Illustrated, 30 September 1974, p. 59.

Lukas, J. Anthony. "How Mel Allen Started a Lifelong Love Affair." New York Times Magazine, 12 September 1971, pp. 38-39, 72-88.

Quirk, James. "An Economic Analysis of Team Movements in Professional Sports." Law and Contemporary Problems, 38 (Winter-Spring 1973): 42-^

Tobin, Richard L. "Mustangs and Tigers on Madison Avenue." Saturday Review. 11 November 1967, pp. 84-85.

______. "The Television Sports Hoax." Saturday Review. 8 October 1966, pp. 109-110. APPENDIX 1

ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE STUDY FROM NEWSLETTERS OF

THE BASEBALL BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

BBAA member , Sports Director WHLS Radio, Port Huron, Michigan is completing graduate work at Bowling Green State University in Radio-TV Film. He is writing a paper exploring the economic history of the major league baseball franchises and major league baseball radio and television broadcasting. During the off-season the WHLS Sports Director wants to interview and poll play-by-play announcers. Cooperation by Association members will be most appreciated.'

As noted in the September 1974 BBAA Newsletter (Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 3), MIKE EMRICK, sports director of WHLS Radio in Port Huron, Michigan is compiling a study of baseball broadcasters and their profession. Mike, who is completing graduate work at Bowling Green State University, has sent questionnaires to the following play-by-play' members: [names listed]. . . . All participating announcers are asked to give Mike Emrick their fullest cooperation by taking part in this in-depth study.*2

iBBAA Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 3, September 1974.

2Idem, Vol. 1, No. 12, Summer 1975. <2 3c

APPENDIX 2

QUESTIONS ASKED OF WORKING AND NON-WORKING ANNOUNCERS

NOTE TO READER: As was mentioned in Chapter II, there was some alteration in tense in some questions because one group of announcers was no longer active in the major league baseball announcing occupation. Where changes in tense were required, the change in words for the non-working announcers were enclosed in brackets. Other questions were included in the original questionnaire. These were not designed for use in this study, but, rather, for subsequent writings having to deal with profession. Questions asked of announcers for use in this study may be read in the following pages.

To the respondent:

Over 50 past and present major league baseball play-by-play announcers are being surveyed. Your responses will help further research in an area about which there is little definite information.

Most of the questions which follow require only a check mark. A handful of the items will request a written answer. Should you need additional space for such answers, please use the back of the page on which the question appears.

If a question is not clear, please write "not clear" and I will endeavor to clarify that particular question for you in a subsequent letter. Please answer all other questions.

Individual responses remain confidential.

Prompt completion and return of the questionnaire will be greatly appreciated! Again, thank you for your assistance! 231

BACKGROUND

The questions in this section will deal with childhood geographical background, sports involvement, education, and professional training.

BIRTHDATE______» ______month 3âÿ year

BIRTHPLACE ______, town or community state

Please name the communities where you lived prior to the age of

18. If you lived in open country, name the nearest town or village.

Also, place a checkmark next to the phrase which describes the size of the community.

( ) over 500,000 population name of city or community Yrs. large city—100,000 to 500,000 small city—25,000 to 100,000 ) small town—less than 25,000 ) farm, ranch, or open country

) over 500,000 population name of city or community Yrs. ) large city—100,000 to 500,000 ) small city-25,000 to 100,000 ) small town—less than 25,000 ) farm, ranch, or open country

) over 500,000 population name of city or community Yrs. ) large city—100,000 to 500,000 ) small city—25,000 to 100,000 ) small town—less than 25,000 ) farm, ranch, or open country

) over 500,000 population name of city or community Yrs.. ) large city—100,000 to 500,000 ) small city—25,000 to 100,000 ) small town—less than 25,000 ) farm, ranch, or open country

If there are additional cities, please list on back of this page along with number of years of residence and approximate size of the community. 232

What was the occupation of your father (or the person who raised you)?

occupation

Would you say that you were an active participant in sports as a youngster? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, which sport or sports?

Did you hold ambitions of playing a sport professionally? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, which sport or sports?

Would you describe yourself as being a frequent follower of sports via radio or television as a youngster? ( ) No ( ) Yes

As a youngster, did you ever have the ambition of becoming a sports announcer? ( ) No If YES, which sport or sports did you want ( ) Yes to broadcast?

At approximately what age did you begin to hold ambitions of being a sports announcer At age____years

Please check the phrase which describes the last phase of your classroom education ( ) elementary school (grades 1-6) ( ) junior high school (grades 7-9) ( ) senior high school (grades 10-12) ( ) college, trade school, or service training 233

COLLEGE, TRADE SCHOOL, OR SERVICE TRAINING, which have you

) COLLEGE Name of school(s)

Total years

Degree(s) earned

Major(s)

) TRADE SCHOOL Name of school(s)

Total years

Specialty

) SERVICE TRAINING Branch

Specialties

Did you have classroom training in broadcasting? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, where did this training take place?

( ) High school ( ) College j Trade school ) Service ) Other ______

Did you have classroom training in journalism? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, where did this training take place?

( ) High school ( ) College ( ) Trade school ( ) Service ( ) Other ______

Do you believe that classroom training in broadcasting is essential for today's major league baseball play-by-play announcer? ( ) No ( ) Yes 234

Do you believe that classroom training in journalism is essential for today's major league baseball play-by-play announcer? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you believe that a background in broadcasting is essential for today's major league baseball play-by-play announcer? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Where did your first on-the-air sports broadcasting experience take place? (play-by-play only) ( ) In a commercial radio station ( ) In a commercial television station ( ) In an educational radio station ( ) In anceducational television station ( ) On a commercial radio network ( ) On a commercial television network ( ) On an armed forces station or network ( ) Other ______

Which route would you advise a young person to follow if he has interest in becoming a major league baseball play-by-play announcer? ( ) College education ( ) Trade school ( ) On-the-job training at a station ( ) On-the-job training with a minor league club ( ) Other ______

Briefly describe the circumstances under which you got your first major league baseball broadcasting position. 235

SPORTS BROADCASTING EXPERIENCE

The questions in this section will pertain to the announcer's expertise in broadcasting baseball as well as other sports. Also covered in this section will be announcer opinions on questions pertaining to facilities, color men, and employer-employee relations. The purpose of the questions in this section is to obtain background information on the experience of the announcers and to determine the degree of agreement among them on questions relating to the subject of baseball broadcasting.

Have you broadcast sports other than baseball? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, please indicate which sports?

FOOTBALL BASKETBALL HOCKEY TRACK & FIELD LACROSSE

Others

How many years have you held a full-time occupation (in any field)?

____ Years

How many years of that time have you devoted to broadcasting sports?

____ Years

On the chart below, please indicate your experience in major league, minor, amateur, and college baseball broadcasting. Begin with your most recent year of broadcasting and work back to your first year. In addition, please check the appropriate boxes under the categories. More than one check mark may be required in some categories. Feel free to use ditto marks. Employer Agreement H » -< -< -< -< =r -Ï -* FLAG­ o L3> o ■Q 3 SHIP rt ct • YEAR TEAM LEAGUE STATION

k 236

Do you think that a second announcer (referred to hereafter as a "color man") is essential for a good baseball broadcast? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, do you think that the play-by-play announcer should have a voice in the selection of the color man?

( ) No ( ) Yes

Have/you [Did you ever] have a voice in the selection of the color man? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, hàs this occurred [did this occur] during the majority of your major league broadcasting years?

( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that it is best for the play-by-play and color men to have the same employer? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) Doesn't matter

Have you known of friction developing between the play-by-play and color men? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, what is believed to be the most frequent cause of such friction? (Answer briefly below.)

In your opinion, what is the IDEAL breakdown of responsibilities for the play-by-play and color men...both on and off-the-air? (If you do not consider a color man essential for a broadcast [first question at the top of this page], please disregard the question;) 237

Please check the parks and stadia from which you have done baseball play-by-play.

( 1 Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim ( ) Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles ( ) , Arlington, ( ) , Los Angeles Texas ( ) County Stadium, Milwaukee ( ) Atlanta Stadium, Atlanta ( ) , ( ) Memorial Stadium, Baltimore Bloomington, Minn. ( ) , Boston ( ) Jarry Park, Montreal ( ) Fenway Park, Boston ( ) , New York ( ) Ebbets Field, Brooklyn ( ) , New York ( ) White Sox (Comiskey) Park, ( ) Yankee Stadium, New .York Chicago ( ) Oakland Stadium, Oakland ( ) Wrigley Field, Chicago ( ) Stadium, ( ) , Cincinnati Philadelphia ( ) , Cincinnati ( ) , ( ) Municipal Stadium, Cleveland Philadelphia ( ) Tiger (Briggs) Stadium, Detroit ( ) , Pittsburgh ( ) Astrodome, Houston ( ) , Pittsburgh ( ) , Houston ( ) , San Diego ( ) Municipal Stadium, Kansas City ( ) , San j ) Royals Stadium, Kansas City Francisco ( ) Coliseum, Los Angeles ( ) , St. Louis ( ) Sportsman's Park (Old ), St. Louis ( ) Seattle Stadium, Seattle ( ) , Washington ( ) RFK Stadium, Washington

Of the parks listed above, which of those from which you have broadcast would you say were the best THREE for broadcasting baseball?

Why were they the best? (Answer briefly below.)

Of the parks listed above, which of those from which you have broadcast would you say were the poorest THREE for broadcasting baseball?

Why were they the poorest? (Answer briefly below.) 238

In your opinion, which is the best employment condition for a play-by-play announcer?

( ) To be employed by a station ( ) To be employed by the ball club ( ) To be employed by a sponsor ( ) To be employed by an ad agency ( ) There is no one arrangement which is better than another

Have you ever been summoned to a meeting with your employer (or a representative of your employer) for something you have said during a broadcast? ( ) Never ( ) On rare occasions ( ) Frequently

In your opinion, does a ball club get better treatment on the air when it employs the play-by-play announcer rather than his being employed by someone else? ( ) Club gets better treatment if it employs the play-by-play announcer ( ) Club gets poorer treatment if it employs the play-by-play announcer ( ) No difference

Do you think it is the responsibility of the announcer to announce the dates and starting times for upcoming home games? ) No ) Yes

Do you think it is the responsibility of the announcer to encourage attendance for home games? ( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, have you usually been asked to do this or have you encouraged attendance on your own? ( ) Was asked to encourage attendance ( ) Encouraged attendance on my own ( ) Both...but neither one more often than the other

Which technique in announcing upcoming home games would you select as the best? ( ) State date, opposition, starting time ( ) State date, opposition, starting time, and ticket locations { ) Give necessary information and add some sort of encouraging phrase such as: "come on out and see this team" 239

Do you think that a play-by-play announcer can help boost home attendance? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that a play-by-play announcer can hurt home attendance? ( ) No ( ) Yes

In what ways can an announcer affect home attendance one way or another (if you think he can)? (Answer briefly below.)

Below are a number of subject items which are on occasion a part of baseball. If you would not make mention of the subject, please place a check mark in the first blank. If you feel that most baseball clubs would not like this subject mentioned, place a check mark in the second blank. It is possible that some items would require a check mark in each blank...and that some would require none.

I TEAM WOULD WOULDN'T NOT WANT

( ( ) A fight among fans in the stands at a home game. ( ( ) A fight among fans in the stands at a road game. ( ) ( ) A player from the team you are covering angrily hurls a bat into the stands and injures a spectator. ( ) ( ) A player from another team angrily hurls a bat into the stands and injures a spectator. ( ) A very small turnout for a home game. ( ) Bad weather conditions. ( ) Batting average of each player appearing in the game. ( ) The appearance on the field of a "streaker." ( ) The words on a banner carried onto the field by a political group.

Do you think that play-by-play broadcasts such as you have done are intended primarily for fans of the team covered? ) No ( ) Yes

Roughly what percentage of listeners are fans of the team covered?

_____ per cent 240

Would you say that the majority of listeners to the broadcasts are what could be termed "regulars" (i.e. listeners to 1/3 to 1/2 of the total broadcasts)? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) Hard tob e certain

In the late innings when the team being covered has an opportunity to put across the deciding runs, do you think an announcer should pull for the home team? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that an announcer has a picture of a specific person or type of person in his mind to whom he describes a game?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, what sort of picture do you recall having? (Answer briefly in the space below.)

Please check the items on which you think most baseball listeners are knowledgeable. ("Home team" refers to thè team being covered regularly.)

( ) The draft system. ( ) The operation of a major league franchise. ( ) The term "suicide squeeze." ( ) The batting averages of home-team players. ( ) The number of times a manager is permitted to visit the mound. ( ) The ground rules of the home-team park. ( ) The World Series winners during the past decade. ( ) The prior baseball experience of players on the home team. ( ) The next team the home team will be playing. ( ) The rule for substituting for a designated hitter in the American League. ( ) The managers of the other teams in the league.

The FCC has recently required broadcasters to announce the existence of any arrangement whereby announcers are directly or indirectly chosen, paid, approved, and/or removed by parties other than the station. Is [Was] such an announcement, or one similar to it, made on your broadcasts? ( ) Frequently ( ) Never ( ) Always ( ) On rare occasions 241

If YES [ON RARE OCCASIONS, FREQUENTLY, or ALWAYS], had [did] this announcement 1n any way alter your approach to broadcasting a game? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, please explain in what way you changed your approach to describing the game. (Answer briefly in the space below.)

In your opinion, do listeners become more skeptical of an announcer's honesty in reporting where the FCC announcement i s made? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Judging from your past experience and from talking to other persons, do you think that the FCC announcement has resulted in any changes having been made in the description of baseball games?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, please explain what changes you think have been brought about by the announcement. (Answer briefly in space below.)

Do you think that it affects an announcer's report of the games if he establishes a close friendship with specific players?

( ' ) No ( ) Yes . . with the field manager? ( ) No ( ) Yes

.. . with the general mana^er?^ No ( ) Yes

. .with the owner of the club? ( ) No ( ) Yes 242

With which group of people do you recall socializing the most?

( ) Players ( ) Field manager and coaches ( ) G M and front office staff ( ) Other broadcasters ( ) Persons outside of baseball and broadcasting ( ) No one group more than another

Which group of people do [did]’you find most important to your work as a baseball broadcaster? ( ) Players ( ) Field manager and coaches ( ) G M and front office staff ( ) Other broadcasters ( ) Persons outside of baseball and broadcasting ( ) No one group more than another

Assuming an average week during the season [in your last season as a baseball broadcaster] when the team you cover [were covering] 1s [was] at home, what would you estimate your total work hours for that week to be (not counting travel time or other responsibil­ ities for which you were paid by someone other than your employer)?

hours

Assuming an average week during the season [in your last season as a baseball broadcaster] when the team you cover is [was] on the road and you are [were] accompanying them, what would you estimate your total work hours for that week to be (not counting travel time or other responsibilities for which you are paid by someone other than your employer)?

hours

Approximately how many times a month during the season would you estimate [did you] make personal appearances~because of your association with baseball? per month 243

Approximately how many times a month after the season (off-season) did you make personal appearances because of yoOr association with baseball? per month

Do [Did] you receive additional pay for personal appearances duri ng the season? ) No ( ) Sometimes ( ) Yes

Do [Did] you receive additional pay for personal appearances after the season (off-season)? ------( ) No ( ) Sometimes ( ) Yes

Would you say that the amount of critical mail that you receive [received during your years of play-by-play announcing] from listeners is [was] less when the team's place in the standings is [was] higher? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) No pattern

Have [Did] you at any time go through periods of anger or discouragement when receiving criticism from listeners?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If NO, why do you think you were able to avoid discouragement? (Answer in space below.)

If YES, how did you overcome the feeling of discouragement? (Answer in space below.)

Do you think that most play-by-play announcers develop a "thick skin II to criticism? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you know of announcers who have quit because of criticism from listeners? ( ) No ( ) Yes 244

Have [Were] you ever been dismissed from a play-by-play announcing job? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Have you ever resigned a play-by-play announcing post because of restrictions having been placed on your broadcast? i IÏ. Were you ever dismissed or have you ever resigned a play-by-play announcing position due to pressure from the public?

( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that the majority of listeners would be receptive to a woman doing play-by-play on a regular basis?

( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that there is a "new breed" of play-by-play announcers with broadcasting philosophies which differrfrom that of the veterans? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, in what ways do you think the "new breed" is different? (Answer in the space below.)

Within the group of play-by-play announcers that you know, would you say that there are one or two whose opinions are most respected?

If YES, which ones? (Answer in the space below.)

In your opinion would you be [were you] among the better baseball play-by-play announcers? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Who would you consider to be the best of the announcers broadcasting baseball today? (Answer in the space below.) 245

What are the attributes of the good baseball play-by-play announcer? (Answer in the space below.)

Do you know minor league announcers who are of major league calibre?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, what do you think keeps them from being major league announcers? (Answer in the space below.)

OFF-SEASON ACTIVITIES

The questions which follow deal with the announcer's family life, off-season leisure pursuits, and involvement in non-baseball, non-broadcasting activities. Again, the individual answers remain confidential. The purpose of this section is to determine if the baseball announcer has an ample amount of lesiure time, and, if so, how it is spent.

MARITAL STATUS (check one) ( ) never married ( ) now married ( ) divorced and re-married ( ) divorced and not re-married ( ) separated ( ) widowed

If MARRIED, does [did] your spouse and/or family reside with you in or near the city where you are [were] employed during the season? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do [During your most recent season as a major league play-by-play announcerA did] you hold*membership in- w sports Organizations?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, which ones? (Answer in space below.)

Are [During your most recent season as a major league play-by-play announcer, did] you hold membership in any broadcasting organizations

( ) No ( ) Yes 246

Do [During your most recent season of play-by-play broadcasting of major league games, did] you hold membership in any fraternal organizations? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, which ones? (Answer in space below.)

Do [Did] you hold membership in a church or synagogue? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do [Did] you have a religious preference? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, please check. ( ) Protestant ( ) Catholic ( ) Jewish ( ) other

Do [Did] you hold membership in any civic or cultural organizations?

( ) No ( ) Yes If YES, please indicate which ones.

Please check if you presently hold [held] leadership titles in the following [during your most recent season of major league play-by-play announcing]:

( ) Church or synagogue ( ) Baseball organization ( ) Broadcasting organization ( ) Civic organization ( ) Cultural organization ( ) Fraternal organization

[Recalling your interest in political affairs during your most recent season of major league play-by-play broadcasting] How would you describe your interest in politics? ( ) Above average ( ) Average ( ) Below average

Are [Were] you a registered voter? ( ) No ( ) Yes 247

Do [Did] you have a party preference? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Did you vote in the last election for President? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Do you think that play-by-play announcers have adequate time to pursue interests outside of baseball? ( ) No ( ) Yes

What [While a broadcaster of major league games, what would you say] were your most frequent leisure time activities?

During the season

After the season

HEALTH

The questions which follow will deal with the health of announcers as subjected to many changes in climate, altitude, and diet. The purpose is to determine if there are maladies common to baseball announcers which might not be common to men in other occupations.

Since beginning your career in play-by-play announcing [While a broadcaster of major league games, did], have you had any illnesses which impaired your working for more than 10 consecutive days? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, da, you féel that any of these illnesses were caused, in full or in part, by the demands of your occupation?

( ) No ( ) Yes

How do you feel that your health and physical condition compares to that of other men your age who are not baseball broadcasters?

( ) Same ( 1 Better ( ) Worse 248

[While a major league announcer] Would you say that regular exercise is [was] important to you? ( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, do [did] you have an opportunity to get as much exercise during the season as you think you need [thought you needed]? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Would you say that diet is [was] important to you?

( ) No ( ) Yes

If YES, do you find that you are [were] able to maintain the diet habits you prefer [preferred] during the season? ( ) No ( ) Yes

IMPORTANCE OF BASEBALL TO INCOME

The few questions on this page deal with the importance of the money derived from play-by-play announcing to the announcer's overall income. It is not the purpose of this section to determine how much money an announcer makes. Rather, it is the goal of these questions to determine the importance of the one occupation (play-by-play of baseball) to a person's overall financial security.

If you were to estimate your gross income derived only from baseball play-by-play [during your most recent major league season], in which category would it fall? ( ) Under $20,000 ( ) $20,000-$50,000 ( ) $50,000-$80,000 ( ) Over $80,000

Would you be [have been] hard-pressed for an income if the baseball franchise you cover [were covering] were to fold or if your job was [had been] terminated? ( ) No ( ) Yes

Is it your opinion that you [Do you think that most play-by-play announcers] could earn a comfortable living if your [their] income was limited to doing the play-by-play of baseball games?

( ) No ( ) Yes 249

How would you compare job security in baseball announcing with that of other occupations? ( ) less security than most ( ) equal security with most ( ) more security than most

How long did you look for work after your last [major league play- by play] job? ( ) went from one job to another immediately ( ) less than one week ( ) 1-4 weeks ( ) 1-4 months ( ) longer than 4 months

Do you think that a baseball play-by-play announcer has greater degrees of personal happiness and greater degrees of discouragement than the "ups" and "downs" of persons in most professions?

( ) No ( ) Yes

How would you describe your overall happiness? ( ) Very happy ( ) Pretty happy ( ) Not too happy

Do you think that your experience in baseball would qualify you to operate a successful baseball franchise (assuming that you had the necessary financial backing and the opportunity)?

( ) No ( ) Yes

How would you describe your emotional make-up? ( ) More emotional than most ( ) The same as most ( ) Less emotional than most

What would you say are some of the more pleasant aspects of: broadcasting baseball? (Answer in the space below.)

What would you say are some of the more unpleasant aspects of broadcasting baseball? (Answer in the space below.) 250

As a result of having been in baseball broadcasting, would you say that your life has undergone change or no change? (Please respond to items below.) [WHILE A BASEBALL BROADCASTER....compare to time before began broadcasting.]

1. Confidence in air travel ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 2. Closeness to family ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 3. Consumption of alcohol ( ) more ( ) less (( ) nocchange 4. Church attendance ( ) more { ) less ( ) no change 5. Frequency of illness ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 6. Admiration for athletes ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 7. Time for hobbies ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 8. Time for reading ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 9. Patience ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 10. Love for baseball ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 11. Concern for other persons ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 12. Affected by criticism ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 13. Overall happiness ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change 14. Financial security ( ) more ( ) less ( ) no change

Do you have comments or suggestions for use in further developing the survey? (If so, please indicate in the space below.)

( ) Please check this box if^you would like a copy of the final abstract which will summarize the findings of the survey. 251

* Indicates park was in use by major league team during 1975 season

# Indicates park was selected by announcers as one of three best

## Indicates park was selected by announcers as one of three worst APPENDIX 3

BALL PARKS RATED AMONG THE THREE BEST OR THREE WORST

BY THE ANNOUNCERS AND REASONS FOR RATING

No. of Announcers having Broadcasted Best Worst Park and Location from That Park Votes Votes

♦Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim, Calif. 22 #15 0

*Arlington Stadium, Arlington, Tex. 20 2 0 ♦Atlanta Stadium, Atlanta, Ga. 22 1 4

♦Memorial Stadium, Baltimore, Md. 28 1 3 Braves Field, Boston * Mass. 9 0 1 ♦Fenway Park, Boston, Mass. 27 #10 1 Ebbets Field, Brooklyn, N.Y. 14 4 1

♦White Sox (Comiskey) Park, Chicago, Ill. 28 1 ##7 ♦Wrigley Field, Chicago, Ill. 24 5 3

Crosley Field, Cincinnati, Ohio 24 0 2

*Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio 17 5 0 ♦Municipal Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio 25 3 2 ♦Tiger (Briggs) Stadium, Detroit, Mich. 30 #10 ##9 Municipal Stadium, Kansas City, Mo. 24 1 2 ★Royals Stadium, Kansas City, Mo. 15 6 0 Coliseum, Los Angeles, Calif. 12 0 2

★Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, Calif. 29 #13 2 Wrigley Field, Los Angeles, Calif. 17 0 0 ♦County Stadium, Milwaukee, Wis. 32 1 1 ♦Astrodome, Houston, Tex. 3 3 0 Colt Stadium, Houston, Tex. 1 0 1 ♦Metropolitan Stadium, Bloomington, Minn. 30 1 2 ♦Jarry Park, Montreal, Quebec 14 2 4

Polo Grounds, New York, N.Y. 17 0 2 253

APPENDIX 3—Continued

No. of Announcers having Broadcasted Best Worst Park and Location from That Park Votes Votes

♦Shea Stadium, New York, N.Y. 30 0 5 Yankee Stadium, New York, N.Y. 30 3 ##9 ♦Oakland Stadium, Oakland, Calif. 22 0 6 Connie Mack Stadium, Philadelphia, Pa. 23 0 5 ♦Veterans Stadium, Philadelphia, Pa. 15 5 0 Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pa. 23 1 6 ♦Three Rivers Stadium, Pittsburgh, Pa. 16 2 0 ♦San Diego Stadium, San Diego, Calif. 16 2 1 ♦Candlestick Park, , Calif. 21 0 4 , San Francisco, Calif. 6 1 0 Busch Memorial Stadium, St. Louis, Mo. 20 5 0 Sportsman's Park (Old Busch Stadium), St. Louis, Mo. 18 0 0 Seattle Stadium, Seattle, Wash. 12 0 3 Griffith Stadium, Washington, D.C. 17 2 3

R.F.K. Stadium, Washington, D.C. 21 1 3

* Indicates park was in use by major league team during 1975 season

# Indicates park was selected by announcers as one of three best

## Indicates park was selected by announcers as one of three worst 254

APPENDIX 3—Continued

ANNOUNCERS* REASONS FOR RATING PARKS THE BEST

Reason3 No. of Announcers

Close to field...... 15

Good facilities...... 11

Plenty of room ...... 10

Clean...... 5

Good view ...... 5

Angle...... 4

Close to the fans ...... 3

Comfortable ...... 3

Close to the press box...... 3

Service ...... 2

Attractive park...... 1

Easy access...... 1

Noise...... 1

Designed for baseball ...... 1

Nice people...... 1

Good lighting...... 1

Information close at hand ...... 1

Pri vacy...... 1

Away from the fans ...... 1

Hone familiarity ...... 1

Enjoyable ...... 1

Situation perfect ...... 1

?0ne of the respondents did not answer this item. 255

f

APPENDIX 3—Continued

ANNOUNCERS' REASONS FOR RATING PARKS THE WORST

Reason No. of Announcers

No room...... 16 Bad facilities...... 8

Too far from the field...... 7

Di rty...... 6

Poor location...... 4

No privacy...... 3

Poor atmosphere ...... 3

Noisy '...... 3

Poor view...... 3

Too near the fans...... 3

No nearby toilet...... 2

Poor service...... 2

Hard to reach...... 2

Cold...... 2

Too far from press box ...... 2

Confusing route to booth ...... 1

No ventilation ...... 1

Too far from information ...... 1

Hard to see the ball...... 1

Poor communication ...... 1

No lights...... 1

Too open ...... 1 Poor booth...... 1 Too far from fans ...... 1

Uncomfortable ...... 1

Plane noise...... 1