CBS, Rural Sitcoms, and the Image of the South, 1957-1971 Sara K
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2013 Rube tube : CBS, rural sitcoms, and the image of the south, 1957-1971 Sara K. Eskridge Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Eskridge, Sara K., "Rube tube : CBS, rural sitcoms, and the image of the south, 1957-1971" (2013). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3154. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3154 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. RUBE TUBE: CBS, RURAL SITCOMS, AND THE IMAGE OF THE SOUTH, 1957-1971 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Sara K. Eskridge B.A., Mary Washington College, 2003 M.A., Virginia Commonwealth University, 2006 May 2013 Acknowledgements Many thanks to all of those who helped me envision, research, and complete this project. First of all, a thank you to the Middleton Library at Louisiana State University, where I found most of the secondary source materials for this dissertation, as well as some of the primary sources. I especially thank Joseph Nicholson, the LSU history subject librarian, who helped me with a number of specific inquiries. The archivists at University of California, Los Angeles, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress were instrumental in finding a number of valuable primary sources. In particular, I must thank Julie Graham, who took a full morning to sit with me and scour the Performing Arts Special Collections at UCLA. Kate Mollan gave me the rare privilege of going into the stacks of the National Archives so that I could gain the full scope of the collections available to me and effectively narrow them down. Not to be outdone, Adam Berenbak devoted an entire morning to feverishly redacting multiple boxes of documents so that I could view them on my last day at the Archives. My most profuse thanks go to the staff at the Noel Memorial Library at Louisiana State University-Shreveport. Susan Davidson and Alan Gabehart went out of their way to secure my access to some rare Nielsen Company ratings materials, even though I was not a student at their school. Likewise, Brian Sherman helped me track down rare articles despite my lack of affiliation. These people prove there are still a few souls who are still willing to put the cause of learning ahead of bureaucratic limitations. In addition to those who helped me gather information, there are those who helped me put the pieces together. Thanks to Gaines Foster and Carolyn Lewis for their ii patient criticisms and suggestions. Dr. Foster also deserves thanks for his generosity, which ensured that I was able to spend as much time as I needed on research trips. A special thanks to Kristi Whitfield and Adam Pratt for their eyes and ears during the revision process. I must thank my family for their constant encouragement and belief that I would one day finish this project. Thanks to Thomas for patiently allowing me to read him books about the Red Scare and the sociology of the South almost from the day he was born. Most of all, I have to thank John for his master editing skills and willingness to flesh out the particulars of this subject with me endlessly. Every time I threatened to give up, he talked me out of it, and I am grateful. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………….……………………………………….……….ii Abstract……………………………………………………….…………………...….v Introduction………………………………………………….………………..………1 Chapter 1 The Communist Broadcast System……………………………………….…...….18 2 Quiz Shows, Horse Operas, and the Confederacy……………………….……….64 3 The Country Broadcast System………………………………………….…...…106 4 The Anesthetic and Mudsill Effects of Rural Comedy………………………....167 5 Rural Comedy and the South as a Scapegoat for Racism……………………....206 6 Smothers Brothers, Quality Demographics, and the Rural Safety Net…………236 7 The Rural Massacre and the Demise of Rural Comedy……………………...…277 Conclusion…………………………………………………………....……...……316 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………325 Vita………………………………………………………………………………..345 iv Abstract This dissertation examines the factors that led to the creation of the CBS rural comedy boom in the 1960s, as well as the reasons for its demise. For years, historians have dismissed the rural comedy craze as the networks catering to the growing number of southern viewers in the late 1950s. However, there were not enough to southern viewers to dictate a network’s programming schedule for almost a decade. Also, rural comedy was the domain of a single network, CBS. Had it really been a major thematic trend, all networks would have at least attempted to follow suit. Therefore, other political, social, and economic factors besides the rising number of southern viewers made rural comedy uniquely suited for CBS in the 1960s. In the late 1940s, during the Red Scare, CBS developed a reputation as the “Communist Broadcast System.” The network spent most of the 1950s attempting to dispel that nickname through a series of quiz shows and westerns. Both genres ultimately backfired and drew negative attention for the network. When rival ABC introduced rural- themed programming to cater to the burgeoning southern market, CBS quickly joined the fray. By the mid 1960s, it had not only stolen ABC’s hold on the rural market, but also re-established itself as the “Country Broadcasting System.” CBS’ stable of rural comedies dominated the ratings throughout the 1960s, a phenomenon not entirely explained by southern viewers. Rural sitcoms brought in viewers from all over the country, indicating universality to the programs that superseded their regional appeal. v This dissertation discusses the factors contributing to the appeal of rural comedy in the 1960s, and addresses the factors that led to the genre’s abrupt demise in the early 1970s. This study not only provides insight into the role that the southern image played in entertaining and reassuring Americans in the turbulent 1960s, it also demonstrates that television is not made in a vacuum. Television trends are the result of specific political, social, and economic stressors placed on the network and the larger population, and therefore provide a living time capsule into the era they were created. vi Introduction Over the past thirty years, classic television shows from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s have developed into a major industry in the United States. Given our nation’s obsession with celebrating its past, it is not surprising that the trend extends into our entertainment viewing preferences. Entire networks are devoted to reruns of The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, The Beverly Hillbillies, and other programs from that era. Whether a traditional family sitcom, a so-called “idiot” sitcom, or a rural comedy, classic programs remain some of the most beloved in television history and still maintain a loyal fan base in the twenty-first century, as a new generation views them through the mediums of video and cable television. Viewing clubs abound online, with people all over the world logging on to discuss their favorite episodes. An industry exists just for the marketing of paraphernalia related to classic shows, including thermoses, lunch boxes, cookbooks, action figures, and t-shirts. There are numerous books devoted to cataloging and dissecting the characters and themes of specific series. One company sells a series of Bible study kits called Primetime Parables, which are based on episodes of popular shows like I Love Lucy and The Andy Griffith Show. Primetime Parables draws parallels between the morals of particular episodes with Bible verses, thereby elevating the programs to the level of religious instruction. The irony of the classic television industry is that the original television producers were not concerned with the legacy or permanence of their product. When television was first introduced, programs were not even filmed, but aired live and then never seen again. The original creators of television did not intend to preserve their product for posterity; 1 indeed, they were literally creating throwaway entertainment.1Producers assumed that home viewers would not want to watch the same program more than once, but they soon saw the error of their ways. As television technology became more sophisticated and networks started to realize the profit potential for semi-permanent syndication, networks started to archive their programs in the 1950s. So-called “re-runs” became popular in the 1960s, and now they are a common feature of cable television. Most programs that aired in the early 1950s were seen only once by a limited audience, but some programs from the 1960s have never been off the air since their original run. Unlike their predecessors, those shows have been seen by multiple generations and therefore have an exponentially larger viewership. As re-runs and classic shows increasingly populate the cable television landscape, patterns emerge in what types of shows stand the test of time. Since what began as throwaway entertainment has evolved into a permanent fixture, it is more important than ever to understand how and why television trends develop. After all, not every show becomes popular. Out of the hundreds of series developed every year, only a relative handful survive, and even fewer achieve the popularity necessary to achieve “classic” status. For every show that runs for decades in television syndication, dozens languish in archives, long forgotten. Sometimes shows are forgotten because they simply fall through the cracks, a victim of inopportune timing on the part of the people who manage the show’s business interests.