This dissertation has been 63—76 microfilmed exactly as received PENNYBACKER, John Howard, 1930- ANALYSIS OF THE REACTION OF RESIDENTS OF BATON ROUGE TO A SERIES OF TELEVISION EDITORIALS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1962 Speech-Theater
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ANALYSIS OF THE REACTION OF RESIDENTS
OF BATON ROUGE TO A SERIES OF
TELEVISION EDITORIALS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University
By
John Howard Pennybacker, B. A., A. M
ick'k^c'k'k
The Ohio State University 1962
Adviser Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer gratefully acknowledges the aid of Dr. Harrison B.
Summers and Dr. Richard M. Mall in the planning, guidance, and writing
of the study reported herein. Their guidance, assistance and encour
agement was invaluable.
This study was planned and carried out while the author was a
staff member of the Department of Speech of Louisiana State University.
In this period the cooperation of Dr. Waldo Braden, chairman of the
Department, was most helpful.
The cooperation of students and faculty members of Southern
University was of great assistance. Dr. Blyden Jackson, chairman of
the Department of English, was especially helpful in encouraging this
cooperation and his aid is gratefully acknowledged.
Tabulations and computations for this study were made possible by Dr. Bill B. Townsend, Director of the Computer Research Center, and his staff. Their assistance in the use of the IBM 650 and 1620 com
puters greatly simplified and expedited all calculations.
Space does not permit the writer to acknowledge the help of the
students of Louisiana State University and Southern University who gath ered the data for this study. The writer is extremely grateful to
them all for their assistance.
Special mention is in order to Mr. Douglas Manship and the
staff of WBRZ-TV for their invaluable aid in granting permission for
the study and in providing the necessary financial assistance.
ii CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii
TABLES ...... v
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Mass Communications in a Free Society The Federal Communications Commission and Broadcast Editorials
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 16
Prior Research Evolution of the Problem
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ...... 30
Objectives of the Study Specific Editorials in Context The Questionnaire The Sample Survey Technique Analysis of Data
IV. SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF LICENSEE EDITORIALIZING. . 59
Introduction Regular Viewing of Broadcast Editorials Support for the Principle of Editorializing Responsibilities Placed on the Licensee who Editorializes Conclusions
V. INFORMATION RETAINED FROM SPECIFIC EDITORIALS ..... 75
Introduction Community Awareness of the Editorials Discussion of the Editorials Retention of Specific Information
iii iv
Chapter Page VI. OVERALL REACTION TO THE SERIES OF EDITORIALS...... 100
Introduction Effectiveness of Individual Editorials Support for the Entire Series Suggested Improvements and Restrictions Conclusions
VII. CONCLUSIONS...... 119
Community Support of the Principle of Television Editorializing Retention of Information in the Editorials Reaction to the Entire Series General Conclusions Suggestions for Further Study
APPENDIXES . 134
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 209
AUTOBIOGRAPHY 212 TABLES
Table Page
1. Program Setting and Opposing Programs of Eighteen Broadcast Editorials with Rating Figures for Each . . 43
2. Share of Audience and Sets in Use Figures for Two Baton Rouge Television Stations ...... 45
3. Distribution of a Proposed Sample of 2,000 Classified by Race and Sex in Twenty-nine Areas of Baton Rouge . 51
4. Distribution of the Sample by Four Va r i a b l e s ...... 52
5. Percent of Respondents Stating They Would or Would Not Regularly Watch Editorials by Station Owners. . . 60
6. Percent of Respondents Answering Yes, No, or Don't K n o w ...... 62
7. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking a Station Owner Does Have the Right to Editorialize on the A i r ...... 63
8. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking a Station Owner Does Not Have the Right to Editorialize on the Air...... 67
9. Percent of Respondents Thinking a Station Owner Who Editorializes Is or Is Not Obligated to Offer Free Time for the Opposing Point of V i e w ...... 70
10. Percent of Respondents Fixing Different Degrees of Responsibility on the Station Owner Who Editorializes 72
11. Percent of Respondents Who Had and Had Not Heard of Anyone Editorializing on the Air...... 77
12. Percent of Respondents Answering "Yes'! to the Previous Question Who Have and Have Not Personally Heard Any Editorials ...... 78
v vi
Table Page
13. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Identified Various Radio and Television Stations as the Source of Editorials...... 79
14. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Identified Various Persons as the Man Who Delivered the Editorials ...... 80
15. Sources from which Respondents Learned of Editorials. . 82
16. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Talked with Others about the,,Material They Heard. . . 83
17. Percent of All Respondents Identifying Various Issues Disc u s s e d ...... 86
18. Analysis of Distribution of Respondents Identifying Each Issue...... 89
19. Audience and Recall Figures for Thirteen Issues .... 98
20. Percent of Respondents Identifying Each Issue as "Most Effective"...... 101
21. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Answered "Yes," "No," or "Don't Know" ...... 103
22. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking Editorials Should be Continued ...... 105
23. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking Editorials Should Not be continued . . . . . 108
24. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Suggestions for Improving the Editorials...... 113
25. Percent of Respondents Naming Various Subjects as Unsuitable for Television Editorials...... 116
26. Percent of All Respondents Wishing to Add, Reduce or Keep the Same Number of Seventeen Different Types of P r o g r a m ...... 181
27. Percent of All Respondents Stating They Would or Would Not Regularly Watch Fourteen Different Types of Television Program...... 182 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Mass Communications in a Free Society
Mass communications in the United States developed in a liberal atmosphere in which individual reason and the "natural rights" of man were considered as paramount. This is well summarized by the late Carl Becker in the following passage:
The democratic doctrine of freedom of speech and of the press, . . . rests upon certain assumptions. One of these is that men desire to know the truth and will be disposed to be guided by it. Another is that the sole method of arriving at the truth in the long run is by the free competition of opinion in the open mar ket. Another is that, since men will invariably differ in their opinions, each man must be permitted to urge . . . his own opinion, provided he accords to others the same right. And the final assum ption is that from this mutual toleration and comparison of diverse opinions the one that seems the most rational will emerge and be generally accepted.!
In such an atmosphere the press was seen as a protector of indi vidual liberties.
Basically the underlying purpose of the media was to help discover truth, to assist in the process of solving political and social problems by presenting all manner of evidence and opinion as the basis for decisions. . . . It was charged with the duty of keeping government from overstepping its bounds. In the words of Jefferson, it was to provide that check on government which no other institutions could provide.^
Within this framework of freedom, the press developed as indivi-
•^Carl L. Becker, Freedom and Responsibility in the American Wav of Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), p. 33.
^Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Shramm, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), p. 51.
1 $ 2 dual publishers saw fit, subject to little or no governmental interference.
Although seen as the protector of individual liberties, the press was free to speak out as it wished and acknowledged neither moral limit nor respon sibilities to the public. A statement attributed to William Peter Hamilton of the Wall Street Journal describes the attitude of these early publishers:
A newspaper is a private enterprise owing nothing whatever to the public, which grants it no franchise. It is therefore affec ted with no public interest. It is emphatically the property of the owner, who is selling a manufactured product at his own risk.3
If, as the result of such an attitude, a newspaper should vilify, lie, or distort, such a practice would be recognized by the public and the offender would be forced out of business from lack of support. In the early nineteenth century man was seen as a rational being capable of find ing truth amid a welter of conflicting ideas and capable of separating truth from falsehood. It was important that opinions be not denied access to the "market place of ideas." John Stuart Mill expressed this idea succinctly:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power would be justified in silencing mankind...... If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.^
As the country and the mass media developed, several factors com bined to change these attitudes towards these media. In the first place,
3Ibid., p. 73.
^On Liberty, quoted in, ibid., p. 46. the technological revolution of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries re sulted in many changes. The size, speed of publication, and efficiency of distribution of the old media — primarily the press — were greatly in creased by mechanization. New media, motion pictures, radio, and television, were also developed. In short, the channels of information became increas ingly more numerous and effective.
At the same time, control of these channels became concentrated in an ever smaller number of hands. The technological developments which permitted more efficient communication also raised the cost of competition and initial entry into the field. An increasing number of small operators were forced out of the business of communication as fewer and fewer attem pted to enter. Consequently, as the various media grew in their power to influence, this power became concentrated in an ever smaller number of hands.**
Because of the character of this development and growth, criticism of the mass media grew during this period also. Many decried the increasing concentration of power. Others feared advertising support of the media could lead to advertiser control and subservience to "big business." Still others maintained that the press and other media were pandering to the
"masses" with a parade of the trivial and sensational. Because such crit icism had an increasing tendency to translate itself into the threat of
^"Daily newspapers steadily decreased in numbers, and so did the cities with competing papers. Five giant publishers accounted for the great bulk of total magazine circulation and of the total sum spent on magazine advertising. Another five companies produced almost all of the movies which Americans saw. Two or three large networks served virtually all of the broadcasting stations in the nation." Ibid.. p. 78. 4
governmental action, those in control of the media became quite sensitive
to the voices of protest.
In addition to this, some of the foundations upon which the doc
trine of a completely free press rested began to be questioned.
As Jefferson and his contemporaries did, we still believe that self-government is the best form of government and that freedom of the mind is the most important of the rights that sustains it. We are less sure than they were that a beneficent intelligence designed the world on a rational plan for man's special convenience. We are aware th^t . . . the laws of human nature are less easily discovered and applied than they supposed. We have found it more difficult to define the essential rights of man. . . . We have learned that human reason is not the infallible instrument for recording the truth that they supposed it to be, and that men themselves are less amenable to rational persuasion.®
Men came to realize that the press was not functioning as had been
expected. Faith in the notion that absolute freedom and the nature of man
included inherent corrective values began to diminish. Some Americans
began to demand certain standards of performance from the press and to de mand government action if these standards were not satisfied. Wilbur
Shramm summarizes the reasons for this shift in opinion.
The press was growing big and concentrated, hard to enter, and farther removed from the people, so that the self-righting pro cess was less likely to have a chance to work. Minority opinions were less likely to be heard, and there came to be less and less assurance that idea would clash against idea in a free market place.
Out of this dissatisfaction developed a new theory of the role of
the press — a theory which Shramm, Peterson, and Siebert are pleased to
call the Social Responsibility theory. Peterson summarizes this theory as
follows:
®Becker, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
^Wilbur Shramm, Responsibility in Mass Communication (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 86. Freedom carries concomitant obligations; and the press, which enjoys a privileged position under our government, is obliged to be responsible to a society for carrying out certain essential functions of mass communications in contemporary society. . . . To the extent that the press does not assume its responsibilities, some other agency must see that the essential functions are carried out.®
What are sane of the characteristics of this new theory? First, the media are expected to provide "a truthful, comprehensive and intel
ligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them mean ing."^ No longer are lies, distortion, and slander to be trusted to a
self-righting process. Now the media have become partners with the public in the search for truth.
Secondly, the media are expected to serve as "a forum for the ex change of comment and criticism." Instead of advocating one point of view and trusting in others to create balance, communicators have the respon
sibility of seeing to it that all views are presented. Here the assump tion seems to be that man is not as adept at seeking and finding diverse opinions as had been believed. Here too, the media must become partners in trust with the public.
A third characteristic of importance is the assumption that the media should present a "representative picture of the constituent groups in society." In this case, the media are charged with the duty of correcting false, stereotyped views of minorities which could cloud jud gement .
Thus the concept of a free press has broadened somewhat to include
8 °Siebert, Peterson, and Shramm, op. cit.. p. 74.
^The three characteristics developed in the following passage are drawn from: Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947). responsibility — the responsibility of serving society by maintaining the kinds of communication needed by society.
Today there is a growing tendency to include all the media of mass communication . . . under the term [press].
The press, now so broadly delineated, is visualized as a primary instrument in our society for the free communication of in formation and ideas. 10
It seems important to note here that this theory does not repre
sent an abandonment of the assumptions noted by Becker.Men still de
sire to know the truth. Free competition of opinion and individual advo
cacy are still important. If all channels of information are kept open,
it is held that the most rational decisions will generally emerge. What
seems to have occurred is a gradual realization that these channels do not
remain clear if left unattended. Concentrations of power, economic in
terests, shifts in social structure and like factors tend to obstruct the
flow of information and distort the process of decision making. The
Social Responsibility theory contends that the controllers of the mass media must consciously work to free these channels and provide as much
diversity as possible. To go a step further, ultimate responsibility rests with the government in its role as guardian of the people.
This concept of Social Responsibility is only a theory, of course.
It was developed by groups and individuals concerned with the role of mass media in a complex society and it seeks to clarify and explain an apparent
shift in the attitude of the public and the government towards these media.
^ J a y W. Jensen, "Towards a Solution of the Problem of Freedom of the Press," Journalism Quarterly. XXVII (Fall, 1950), p. 408.
■^Supra.. p. 1. Thus it can be seen as a formalized expression of attitudes already existing in our society.
The existence of these attitudes in the decade following 1920 is illustrated by the influence of the federal government on the development of broadcasting. In this period the commercial possibilities of radio were gradually realized. As radio stations "sprouted up in chaotic confusion, competitors broadcast on the same wavelengths, amateurs mixed their signals with those of professionals, and the cacaphony was carried into a growing number of listener's homes.The government was invited by the broad casters themselves to intercede and bring order. In 1927 the Federal Radio
Commission was established to accomplish this goal. Later, in 1934, the
Federal Communications Commission was created to maintain order, issue lic enses, and supervise broadcasting within certain broad limits.
Congress felt that one solution to the chaos on the air was a sys tem of station licensing. A major mission of both the Federal Radio
Commission and the Federal Communications Commission has been the adminis tration of this licensing function. The standard to be applied to the award of these licenses was deceptively simple. Section 307 (a) of the
Federal Communications Act of 1934 states:
The Commission, if public convenience, interest, or neces sity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this Act, shall grant to any applicant therefor a station license provided for by this act. (Italics mine.)13
The reference here is to the Communications Act of 1934, but the language is that of the Radio Act of 1927. "The Radio Act of 1927, . . . is essen-
^Siebert, Peterson, and Shramm, op. cit.. p. 84.
^ Communications Act of 1934. in U.S., Statutes at Large, XLVII, 1083. 8 tially the same legislation under which broadcasting . . . operates today, although it has since been incorporated in the Communications Act of
1934."14
As licensing agencies, both Commissions found it necessary to make choices between contesting applicants for the same frequency. Within the broad boundaries of the "public convenience, interest, or necessity," cer tain specific standards began to evolve against which applications could be measured. Wilbur Shramm lists 25 of these standards and includes in his list the area of "programming."^ In this area the Commission has found it necessary to determine what kind of program service best serves the public interest.
The Federal Communications Commission and Broadcast Editorials
Within the framework outlined above the Federal Communications
Commission can be considered an agency of the government established to in sure that the media of radio and television effectively discharge their ob ligations to the public. This supervisory responsibility has led the Com mission into the area of programming and, as will be developed, into the specific area of broadcast editorializing.
The Commission itself provides a definition of editorializing, and it is this definition that will be used throughout. It is found in a Com mission discussion of the matter of broadcast editorializing.
•^Sydney W. Head, Broadcasting in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956), p. 130.
^Shramm, op. cit.. p. 117.
I 1>
9
"Editorialization" — the use of radio facilities by the lic ensees thereof for the expression of the opinions and ideas of the licensee on the various controversial and significant issues of in terest to the members of the general public afforded radio (or tele vision) service by the particular station.^
The F.C.C. has, on occasion, been faced with the necessity of de ciding whether a licensee has the right to use a public facility, the air waves, to advocate his own views on a controver> ne. In a society devoted to free speech and freedom of the press, do such actions represent restrictions on the free flow of information or do they contribute to a diversity of opinions? Newspapers and other mass media, although subject to the social pressures defined by the Social Responsibility theory, were relatively free to answer this question as they saw fit, primarily because they were not using a public facility to transmit their messages. Because broadcasters were licensed, and because licenses had to be renewed every two years, these broadcasters have found it necessary to turn to either the Federal Radio or Federal Communications Commission for guidance.
This guidance has been far from consistent over the years. At first the Federal Radio Commission seemed to feel that ideas must find their way to the radio market place with no assistance or selection by the owner of the market place. This view is expressed in a 1928 decision of the Com mission.
Propoganda stations . . . are not consistent with the most beneficial sort of discussions of public questions. As a general rule, . . . particular doctrines, creeds, and beliefs.must find their ways into the market of ideas by the existing public service stations, and if they are of sufficient importance to the listening public the
^U.S., Federal Communication Commission, In the Matter of Edit orializing by Broadcast Licensees. Docket No. 8516 (FCC release 49-769, mim.), June 1, 1949. 10
microphone will undoubtedly be available. If it is not, a well founded complaint will receive the careful consideration of the commission in its future action with reference to the station complained of.17
Here, then, are the stirrings of a Social Responsibility view of
the relationship between government and broadcttsting. Varied views and
opinions will find their way to a microphone if they are of "sufficient
importance." The role of the government is simply vigilance to see that
there are no impediments to this kind of discourse.
Broadcasters operated in accordance with this philosophy for approximately ten years. In the late 1930's, however, the editor-in-chief
of station WAAB, Boston, began broadcasting programs which urged the elec
tion of various candidates for public office and supported only one side
of controversial questions. Claiming this was clearly contrary to the
public interest, the Mayflower Broadcasting Corporation contested the re
newal of the license for WAAB. The Boston station assured the Commission
that it would discontinue the practice of editorializing and its license was renewed. The F.C.C. took this opportunity to restate its position in
the matter.
The public interest can never be served by a dedication of any broadcast facility to the support of his [the licensee's] own par tisan ends. Radio can serve as an instrument of democracy only when devoted to the communication of information and the exchange of ideas fairly and objectively presented. A truly free radio cannot be used to advocate the causes of the licensee. . . . It cannot be devoted to the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate. (Italics mine.)*-®
In retrospect this seems to have been little more than a more di
rect statement of the position taken in 1928 by the Federal Radio Commission,
*^U.S., Federal Radio Commission, In re Great Lakes Broadcasting Co., Third Annual Report (1929), p. 34.
*-®U.S., Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of the Mayflower Corporation. Docket #5618, FCC Reports. 8 (March 1, 1940 - August 1, 1941), 333-341. 11 but It brought forth a storm of protest from the broadcasting Industry.
Spokesmen for the Industry declared it "discriminated against broadcasters unfairly, . . . and that it misrepresented the true meaning of the public service responsibility of a radio station.
Despite continuous pressure from the industry, the Commission refused to reconsider its opinion for eight years. The broadcasters, who had held in 1928 "that licensees should not even have any editorial pol icies," now asserted that "stations should have the same rights as news- 20 papers to exercise a positive influence on community affairs." In 1948 the Commission yielded to these pressures and instituted a series of hear ings which resulted in a decision with far reaching implications for the broadcasting industry. This decision is of sufficient importance to warrant quotation at some length. At first the Commission generalized about the importance of a free flow of information:
It is 'axiomatic that one of the most vital questions of mass communication in a democracy is the development of an informed public opinion through the public dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day. . . . We have recognized . . . the paramount right of the public in a free society to be informed and to have presented to it for acceptance or rejection the different atti tudes and viewpoints concerning these vital and often controversial issues which are held by the various groups which make up the communi ty. It is this right of the public to be informed . . . which is the foundation stone of the American system of broadcasting.
This could have been the preamble to either of the two decisions cited above. However, a shift in emphasis became evident:
If, as we believe to be the case, the public interest is best served in a democracy through the ability of the people to
^■%illiam F. Swindler, Problems of Law in Journalism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955), p. 518.
^^Elmer E. Smead, Freedom of Speech by Radio and Television (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1959), pp. 76-77. 12
hear expositions of the various positions taken by responsible groups and individuals on particular topics and to choose between them, it is evident that broadcasters have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues over their facilities, over and beyond their obligation to make available on demand opportunities for the expression of opposing views.
No longer are ideas expected to find their own way to the microphone.
Broadcasters are now expected to "encourage and implement" the presenta
tion of these ideas. This, however, was not all. Advocacy was no longer
frowned upon.
The . . . question of whether any overt editorialization or advocacy by broadcast licensees, identified as such, is conso nant with operation of their stations in the public interest, resolves itself primarily into the issue of whether such identifi cation of comment or opinion would inevitably or even probably result in such overemphasis on the side of any particular contro versy which the licensee chooses to espouse as to make impossible any reasonably balanced presentation of all sides of such issues or to render ineffective the available safeguards of that overall fairness which is the essential element of operation in the public interest. We do not believe that any such consequence is either probable or inevitable, and we have therefore come to the conclu sion that overt licensee editorialization, within reasonable limits and subject to the general requirements of fairness . . . is not contrary to the public interest.
To make the point quite clear, the Commission restated its position at
the end of the long decision:
The Commission believes that under the American system of broadcasting, the individual licensees of radio stations have the responsibility for determining the specific program material to be broadcast over their stations. This choice, however, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic policy of Con gress that radio be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public.... This requires that licensees devote a reason able percentage of their broadcasting time to the discussion of public issues . . . and that such programs be designed so that the public has a reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing po sitions. . . . Such presentations may include the identified ex pression of the licensee's personal viewpoint as part of the more general presentation of views or comments on the various issues, 13
but the opportunities of licensees to present such views . . . may not be used to achieve a partisan or one-sided presentation of issues.
This decision, rather loosely referred to as "the second Mayflower
Decision" by the industry, marks another step in the developing opinion of the F.C.C. in the matter of broadcast editorials. In taking this step, the commissioners apparently felt that the flow of information and opinion to the public required stimulation. This could be provided by requiring broad casters to seek out and broadcast opposing views and by granting them the right to express their own opinions on matters of interest and importance.
Note here that the Commission now seems to see itself as something more than a passive guardian of the channels of information. In accordance with the Social Responsibility theory described earlier, the F.C.C. stipulated that broadcasters carry out "certain essential functions of mass communi- 22 cations in contemporary society" -- in this case, the development of an informed public opinion.
The Commission, however, was somewhat passive on the subject of editorials. In permitting advocacy they opened another channel of infor mation, but the language of the decision merely stated that broadcaster's
"may include" identified expression of opinion in an overall presentation of varied views.
This was not the case, however, by 1960. Apparently still con cerned about the flow of information, the F.C.C. issued a Report and State-
^U.S., Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Edi torializing by Broadcast Licensees.
^ Supra.. p. 5. 14 ment of Policy on July 29, 1 9 6 0 . In this report the Commission included a list of fourteen "major elements" of balanced station progransning and indicated that every station will be expected to carry a reasonable pro portion of each. One of these elements is "editorials by licensees."
The policies outlined in this memorandum of July 29 were imple mented in 1961. On February 17 the Commission issued a Notice on Program
Forms which listed the information which is expected in all applications for construction permits or license renewals. The following are some of the more pertinent requirements.
State the past and proposed practice of the applicant with respect to the fair presentation of controversial issues of public importance, including the frequency of editorials . . . broadcast, or other types of programs, and the procedure followed . . . with respect to the presentation of opposing points of view. . . . De scribe at least two leading community issues (local in nature) in each of the last three years and state whether specific programs and/or announcements have been broadcast in connection therewith, the number and length thereof, and the times at which broadcast.24
At the time of this writing, this represents the stand of the
Commission on the question of broadcast editorials. As a part of their public service obligations, broadcasters are expected to editorialize on issues of local importance. The present chairman of the F.C.C., Newton
Minnow, emphasized this in a 1962 speech to the National Association of
Broadcasters.
Though they [the broadcasters] can legally evade their responsibility to provide second and third choices to their people,
OO '■-’U.S., Federal Communications Commission, Report and Statement of Policy Re: Commission en banc Programming Inquiry, quoted in, Walter B. Emery, Broadcasting and Government (Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1961), p. 419.
24U.S., Federal Communications Commission, Notice on Program Forms 15
morally they are compelled to answer the need for more information, more opinions, and, of grave import, more courage.^
Thus, the broadcasters who once looked to the F.C.C. for guidance
in the question of broadcast editorializing find themselves with something more than mere permission to do so. Today they must answer to the Commis
sion if they do not advocate.
In this chapter the problem of the reaction of the Federal Commun
ications Commission to broadcast editorials has been discussed in the light
of some general theories of the role of mass communications in society. In
the next chapter the question of broadcast editorials in a specific community will be developed.
^"Editorializing is a Moral Obligation - Minow," Broadcasting. LXII (March 5, 1962), p. 65. CHAPTER II
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Prior Research
During the evolution traced in the proceeding chapter -- the emer gence of a Social Responsibility theory for the press and the evolving po sition of the Federal Communications Commission in the question of broad cast editorials -- one point has remained constant. This has been the contention that fact, opinion, and background information must be kept flowing if the public is to discharge effectively its decision making func tions. This view is expressed in each of the Commission decisions quoted.
It is implied in the continuing efforts of the Commission to prod broad casters into more editorializing.
The assumption behind this contention seems to be that once these opinions were provided, the public would put them to good use. No research into the effects of editorials has been found to support this assumption, however.
In a study related to the question, Mary Ann Cusack of Wayne State
University investigated "the current attitude of the broadcasting industry towards revising editorial policy.Her primary source of information was a series of depth interviews with prominent representatives of various re lated fields. The fields, and the men interviewed, were these: (1) Broad-
^■Mary Ann Cusack, "Editorializing in Broadcasting" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Speech, Wayne State University, 1960).
16 17
casting — Edward R. Murrow, John Daly, and Mike Wallace; (2) Journalism --
Royce Haws, Assistant Editor of the Detroit Free Press; (3) Education in
Broadcasting — Charles A. Siepmann and John Hohenberg, both of Columbia
University; and (4) Sociology — Renel Denny, University of Chicago. The
conclusions she drew from these interviews may be paraphrased as follows:
(1) Freedom of speech could be menaced if a small group of men took advan
tage of the right to editorialize and all worked together to advocate the
same position; (2) networks have removed themselves from suspicion by
devoting so little time to editorials; (3) broadcasters are more subservi
ent to sponsors than are newspapers and are less likely to take an un
popular position; (4) individual stations lack skilled personnel and mature
direction from management; and (5) sociologists feel there is a lack of
public demand for broadcast editorials.
Joseph Klapper, in his book The Effects of Mass Communication,
summarizes the results of a great many studies in the field of communica
tion, many of them touching on the question of persuasion by radio and/or O television. In his discussion of reinforcement, minor change and con
version he draws the following conclusions:
1. Communications research strongly indicates that persua sive mass communication is in general more likely to reinforce the existing opinions of its audience than it is to change such opinions. Minor attitude change appears to be a more likely effect than con version and a less likely effect than reinforcement. This is not to say, however, that conversion does not occur nor that under certain conditions it may not be widespread. 2. The fact that persuasive mass communication serves more often as an agent of reinforcement than of conversion seems to be due,
^Joseph T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960). at least In part, to the way in which its influence is mediated by certain extra-communication factors and conditions.3
These factors and conditions are listed as follows: (1) "Predis positions and the derived processes of selective exposure, selective per ception, and selective retention." (2) "The group, and the norms of groups, to which the audience member belongs." (3) "Interpersonal dissemination of communications content." (4) "Opinion leadership." (5) "The nature of commercial mass media in a free enterprise society."^
In his concluding chapter, Klapper makes an important point.
The research here cited which bears upon mass communica tion as an instrument of persuasion has typically dealt with non- crucial issues and has been pursued either in laboratories or in naturalistic situations within a relatively stable society. Little attention has here been given to the potentialities of persuasive mass communication at times of massive political upheaval or in situations of actual or imminent social unrest.3
Evolution of the Problem
In the years between the 1954 United States Supreme Court decision striking down school segregation and November of 1961, a situation slowly developed in the state of Louisiana which could be characterized as one of
"imminent social unrest." Briefly, the Federal District Court in New
Orleans had ordered the schools of Orleans Parish (county) to begin a pro gram of desegregation by November 14, 1960. Opposing this order were the
Governor of the state, the Louisiana Legislature, and what appeared to be a substantial number of the residents of the state. The controversy built
3Ibid., pp. 49-50. 19 for several years and reached a climax between November, 1960, and March,
1961. In this period both the Governor and the Legislature unsuccessfully fought the rulings of the Federal Court and each step taken by either side was given great publicity throughout the state. During this crisis the owner of a television station in Baton Rouge delivered a series of edit orials in an attempt to persuade the people of the area that their only rational response was acceptance of the rulings of the court. Such a situation provided an opportunity to test the effects of such editorials in a situation of "social unrest."
This situation, of course, stemmed from the United States Su preme Court decision of May 17, 1954 -- a decision which "outlawed racial segregation in public schools."® Like several states in the "Deep South,"
Louisiana reacted to this court order by doing nothing for several years.
In 1959 it was still possible for The New York Times to editorialize that
"five states that form the hard core of Deep South resistance -- South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana -- have no desegre gated schools.
In February of 1956, however, the first of a long series of actions had been taken by Federal Judge J. Skelley Wright of the Federal
District Court in New Orleans. At that time he had ordered the Orleans
Parish (which includes the city of New Orleans) School Board to begin a pro gram of desegregation. This was ignored by both the state and the parish until, in July, 1959, Judge Wright's patience was exhausted. On July 16
®The New York Times. May 18, 1954, p. 1.
September 29, 1959, p. 43. 20
he "ordered a plan for desegregation of New Orleans schools to be pre
sented by next May."®
Again the parish and the city responded with studied inaction.
In May of the following year Judge Wright answered this by ordering "New
Orleans public schools to desegregate classes next September."® In the
absence of any plan for the school board the judge constructed his own —
one in which the various grades would be desegregated one year at a time,
starting with the first grade.
This ruling brought into the open the conflict between the federal
courts and the government of Louisiana. In July the state Senate approved
"a new package of segregation bills including one to authorize the governor
to close schools in event of integration. . . . The measures, already ap
proved by the House, now go to Governor Davis forapproval or veto."^®
On July 6 Governor Jimmy Davis was quoted as saying that theschools "will
continue to operate on a segregated basis and we will do what is appro
priate and necessary to accomplish this purpose.The state courts also
entered the dispute by issuing "an order prohibiting the Orleans Parish
School Board from complying with the federally directed integration in the
city's public schools in September."^2 in still another action, on
August 17 "Gov. Davis assumed control and management of public schools in 13 Orleans Parish in an effort to stave off integration."
^The Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge), July 16, 1959, p. 1.
9Ibid.. May 17, 1960, p. 1.
10Ibid.. July 1, 1960, p. 1.
11Ibid., July 6, 1960, p. 1.
12Ibid.. July 30, 1960, p. 1.
^•®Ibid.. August 18, 1960, p. 1. 21
The District Court responded to this burst of state activity by setting aside the ruling of the State Court and calling an August 26 hear ing on the actions of Governor Davis and the Legislature. The attempts to serve court papers on the governor were not entirely successful.
Louisiana's battle to keep public schools segregated turned into a game of hide-and-seek Thursday as Governor Davis eluded U.S. marshals.
The marshals sought to serve court papers notifying Davis of an Aug. 26 hearing for an injunction that strikes at the legality of the law under which Davis acted.14
Despite this, the three-judge Federal Court ruled that control of the New Orleans Public Schools must be returned to the parish school board. In addition, the court reaffirmed Judge Wright's earlier decision that desegregation must start in September.
The school board finally accepted the decision, but pleaded that the ruling of the state court had prevented them from formulating any plan for orderly desegregation. Judge Wright agreed and granted a delay until
November 14 -- the beginning of the second quarter of school work.
In the month of September, Douglas Manship, president and general manager of WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge, took to the air in a featured broadcast called The Month of Decision. In this broadcast, Mr. Manship spoke for the first time on the problem of segregation in Louisiana. He concluded:
It's an inescapable fact that no one has ever won a fight against desegregation of schools. You could close schools or in tegrate. If you close them, you kill L o u i s i a n a . 15
^ I b i d ., August 19, 1960, p. 1.
^Quoted in, "His Broadcast Editorials go to the Heart of any Issue," Broadcasting. LX (February 13, 1961), 97. 22
The program had little perceptible effect on the course of the controversy between the state and federal governments. Little happened in
September and early October, but, as November approached, the Governor called a special session of the state Legislature. He was quite secretive about his aims. "In his call to the legislators, the governor used only
« vague terms. He mentioned schools, education, and protection of state's 16 rights and dropped a mysterious hint about the state militia."
On November 6 the Legislature convened in Baton Rouge and the
Governor's plans were made clear.
Gov. Davis' Administration Friday handed a newly convened special session of the Legislature 29 bills designed to bolster state school segregation laws behind a protective shield of interposing the state's sovereign rights between Federal Courts and public school op erations. Many of the bills are aimed directly at blocking court-ordered integration of New Orleans schools scheduled this month, while others strengthen the Governor's authority to close any one or all Louisiana schools in the wake of federally forced classroom mixing.^
Judge Wright responded by issuing a restraining order which, in effect, nullified all legislative action on the school issue to that point.
This set the stage for a hectic week-end in which the state superintendent of schools called a special holiday for November 14 (the day set for deseg regation) , Judge Wright signed a new restraining order to counter this move, and the legislature continued fighting.
Federal Judge J. Skelley Wright Sunday night signed a re straining order against any State interference in Monday's ordered desegregation of Orleans Parish schools. The order . . . came about only an hour after the Legisla ture approved resolutions putting the entire Legislature in charge of Orleans schools and providing for appointment of assistant sergeants
1 fk xoThe Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge), November 1, 1960, p. 1.
^ Ibid.. November 5, 1960, p. 1. 23
of arms from the House and Senate to see to it that no schools are opened in New Orleans Monday.
Segregation leaders indicated they would ignore Wright's orders and proceed as if it had not been issued. "He hasn't got the right, its unheard of," said one legis lator. "I nor anyone else with a slight knowledge of law has ever heard of a judge enjoining a legislature."1®
In spite of the Governor and the Legislature, on November 14 five negro girls were admitted to two Orleans Parish elementary schools. The people of New Orleans reacted first by rioting and, finally, by setting up an almost completely effective boycott of the two schools. The Davis admin istration spent the remainder of the month of November awaiting a court de cision on the question of interposition. This is a doctrine which advo cates the interposing of the authority of a state government between its people and an unpopular decision of the federal government. At the end of the month the Federal District Court in New Orleans ruled this doctrine unconstitutional.
Federal judges hammered down all Louisiana barriers to school integration Wednesday. . . . The judges leveled the barrier of interposition. When interposition fell so did 22 segregation bills and resolutions passed by an angry Louisiana Legislature in special session.
The House . . . unanimously adopted a resolution saying that interposition and a segregated school system are still public policy in Louisiana.^
The Davis administration and the Legislature were not ready to ad mit defeat, however. Rumours of another special session and the possi bility of an increase in state taxes were confirmed on December 11 when a second thirty day session was called. The call included a provision for
1®Ibid., November 14, 1960, p. 1. 19 Ibid., December 1, 1960, p. 1. 24
the discussion of a possible tax increase and mentioned the sales tax as
a possibility.
Into this emotion-charged atmosphere stepped Dr. Waldo McNeir, a
Professor of English at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Dr.
McNeir, apparently feeling he had seen and heard enough, sent copies of
the following letter to State Senator Wendell Harris and Representatives
A.T. (Apple) Sanders and Eugene McGehee -- his representatives in the
State Legislature.
Segregation is wrong. Interposition is of no legal value. Louisiana is one of the 50 states that make up this nation. State sovereignty is a dead doctrine. We must live under the rule of law or perish. Reason must prevail. The laws enacted by the state legislature in these two special sessions are a disgrace and a national scandal. They have seriously damaged this country in the eyes of the world. Whatever your personal views, these are the facts. There is still time for you to show statesmanship and rise above your personal feelings. I was born in the South. I am a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of this state for 11 years, a tax payer, and the parent of a school age child. I urge for you to vote for law and order before tragic results occur. ®
Legislative reaction to this was quick and to the point.
A House committee Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution condemning a LSU professor for criticizing the Legislature's anti integration program in a letter to his representative and ordered an un-American activities probe at the University.
Representative Mike John had this to say: "By what right does an LSU professor dare to attack the character and intentions of this legislature. I won't stand by and permit such a person to level such an unwarranted attack upon what we are trying to do here."2^
During the following week, Governor Davis suffered his first
defeat of the special sessions. The House of Representatives failed to
^ I b i d .. December 14, 1960, p. 8.
21Ibid.. p. 1. 25 give him a two-thirds majority needed to pass a 1% increase in the Louis iana sales tax. Following this set-back, the Governor sent the represen tatives home for the Christmas holidays. It seems apparent that in this time some judicious pressure was applied to a few of the legislators, for when the tax issue came up for a second vote on January 5, the Governor got his two-thirds majority.
The Senate, however, proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for the Governor. Despite his entreaties the Senate held its ground and Gov ernor Davis was forced to abandon his plans to increase state taxes. He did, however, issue a call for still another special session.
The legislators had little to do during the last two weeks in
January, however. Both the administration and the Legislature seemed to be waiting for the next move by the courts. It seemed evident that this was not to be long in coming.
The eyes of Louisiana will be on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans Wednesday when state and parish legal chieftians do battle against a negro-sought judgement seek ing to direct the East Baton Rouge . . . Parish School Board to produce desegregation plans.
At the crux of the cases is an order by Federal Judge J. Skelley Wright, who last May directed an end to segregation in East Baton Rouge . . . Parish. . . . At the time the judge did not set a date for the integration to start.
No one was surprised when the Court of Appeals did uphold the earlier de cision by Judge Wright.
Having lost the battle of New Orleans, the state apparently decided to enter into a similar battle in Baton Rouge. The administration began the battle by preparing its defenses more carefully than it had done in the past.
22I M £ . , January 18, 1961, p. 1. 26
Turning first to the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Gov ernor Davis took steps to insure that the board would not follow the pat tern set in Orleans Parish by obeying specific orders of a federal court.
The Legislature solved this problem by increasing the membership of the board from seven to eleven, and allowing Governor Davis to make the four appointments.
With the school board safely under control, the administration directed its attention towards those citizens of Louisiana who might not agree with its action. The result was a pair of laws which quickly came to be known as the "Paid Informer Laws."
House Bill 2 - Makes it a crime to offer money or something of value to a parent to induce him to send his child to a public school in violation of state law. The penalty for conviction is a fine of $500 to $1,000 and a mandatory jail sentence of up to one year. Judges could not suspend sentence. Immunity is extended to the bribe taker or bribe offerer "whichever one first informs of the bribe." The fine levied in a conviction "shall be paid to the informer or informers who shall give such information resulting in conviction."
House Bill 4 - Makes it a crime to offer a parent or a school employee anything "to perform any act in violation of the ordinary procedures adopted in pursuance to the laws of this state." The mandatory penalties, immunity from prosecution for informers and payment of fines collected to informers is the same as in House Bill 2.23 f
Following the passage of these acts, the last two of which were to be declared unconstitutional by the Federal District Court in New
Orleans, the legislative activities ground slowly to a halt. The sit uation in New Orleans was beyond redemption and little more could be .done about the threat to Baton Rouge until it was pinned down to a specific date. As a result, early in March the legislators returned to their homes and a period of comparative peace descended upon the state of Louisiana.
23Ibid.. February 16, 1961, p. 1. 27
Throughout this controversy Mr. Douglas Manship found many occasions on which he felt it desirable to editorialize.
In summary, his position was that those in responsible positions in Louisiana Government had lost all respect for the law of the land -- as voiced in this case by the federal courts. These officials were wasting their time and energy — and the taxpayer^ money — in a useless struggle which misled many people into believing there was some hope of avoiding the inevitable. In spite of this, few voices in the community were being raised to protest what was basically a dishonest position for the state government to assume.
Underlying these editorials was the belief that the laws of the
United States of America are proper laws. They must be enforced for the good of the entire nation even though they may irritate some part of this nation. Unpleasant as the idea may be to some, the United States could no longer afford the luxury of having two classes of citizens. Each editorial dealt with specific phases of a local situation, but the above represents the basic purpose and philosophy underlying each.^
Douglas Manship himself is a native of Baton Rouge, the youngest son of a family that controls both newspapers in the community as well as a radio station and WBRZ-TV. He attended Louisiana State University, where he majored in Political Theory and minored in Economics. The second
World War interrupted his studies and, although he has since attended sum mer sessions at the University of Colorado, Harvard University, and the
University of Heidelberg in Germany, the pressures of business have pre-
^Personal interview with Mr. Douglas Manship, President and General Manager of WBRZ-TV, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 27, 1962. vented him from completing the work necessary for a degree from any of these universities.
In 1947, at the age of 39, he was elected president of the family radio properties, moving over from the newspapers. When he found himself competing with another applicant for the VHF television channel allocated
Baton Rouge in the early 50's, he and the other applicant combined to form the Louisiana TV Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Manship was elected pres ident of this corporation and has since become general manager. In 1960, he was President of the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters.
Although the editorials delivered during this series represent the greatest number he has attempted on a single subject in such a short period of time, they were not his first. Since WBRZ-TV went on the air on April 14, 1955, he has often taken editorial stands on public issues.
At all times, though, he contended that such editorials should be timely and not tied to a strict schedule. He has said, "we don't editorialize just to fill the space.That newspaper tradition tends to deaden edi torial pages.
WBRZ-TV is a VHF station assigned to Channel 2. Until the summer of 1960 it was the only VHF station in the Baton Rouge market. In August of that year the second station moved from Channel 28 to Channel 9. De spite the increased competition, WBRZ-TV has remained the dominant station in a metropolitan market of 60,000 television homes. According to the
American Research Bureau report for March, 1961, the comparative station share of sets-in-use was as follows on weekdays: (1) Sign-on to Noon,
^Quoted in, !,His Broadcast Editorials go to the Heart of any Issue," Broadcasting. LX (February 13, 1961), 97. 29
WBRZ-TV, 56.5%, WAFB, 43.3%; (2) Noon to 6:00 EM, WBRZ-TV, 73.8%, WAFB,
25.8%; and (3) 6:00 PM to Midnight, WBRZ-TV, 61.0%, WAFB, 37.2%. Weekends are distributed as'follows: (1) Saturday, 6:00 IM to Midnight, WBRZ, 62.5%,
WAFB, 37.2%; and (2) Sunday, 6:00 EM to Midnight, WBRZ, 56.8%, WAFB, 42.8%.26
The station has a primary affiliation with the National Broadcasting Com pany and a secondary affiliation with the American Broadcasting Company.
Editorials broadcast by the president and general manager of WBRZ-
TV provided an opportunity for a study of the effects of such communication upon the people of a community in a period of "social unrest." Accordingly, in January of 1961, Mr. Manship was approached about the possibility of his support of such a study. Fortunately, he was willing to provide this support, and to conceal it during the actual survey period. The details of the study which resulted, its specific goals and methodology will be described in the following chapter.
2^The Baton Rouge Television Audience (Washington: The American Research Bureau, March, 1961), pp. 1-2. CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Objectives of the Study
The previous chapter outlined a situation of "social unrest?' in the state of Louisiana. The actions of the Federal District Court in New
Orleans and the reactions of the state government revolved around a dif ficult problem to the South -- the "race problem." The firmness of both
Judge Wright and Governor Davis created an issue that was in the public eye for many months and aroused many emotional reactions throughout the state. The interjection into this situation of editorials supporting the federal courts provided an opportunity for a study of the effects of
such editorials.
It was felt that such a study could investigate the assumption
that if opinion and information were provided the public would put them to good use.l It could also provide an opportunity to investigate the effects of persuasive mass communications. Finally, the study could ex plore how well the philosophy of editorializing expressed by the Federal
Communications Commission reflected public opinion on the question.
To investigate these general areas, the study which resulted was designed to seek answers to three rather specific questions. The
first of these was: "How much support will the people of a community
like Baton Rouge today give to the principle of licensee editorializing?"
•^Supra.. p. 17.
30 31
Data gathered in answer to this question could provide an Insight Into the correspondence, or lack of correspondence, between the opinions of the F.C.C. and the general public in the matter of broadcast editorials.
The question was considered first to provide a general lead-in to a con sideration of the specific editorials delivered by Mr. Manship.
The question of the effect of persuasive mass communication was approached obliquely. Respondents were not asked if they felt the edito rials had affected their decisions in any way. Instead, each was asked what he could remember about the editorials he had heard. Thus, the second question investigated was: "How much information have these people retained from specific editorials?" If an individual could remember the content of an editorial, could identify the stand taken by Mr. Manship, and could express his own opinion in the matter, it was assumed that this editorial had, to some degree, entered into the decision-making process.
This assumption may be subject to question, but it was not possible to provide for pre and post-testing of opinions held by subjects. The above technique could, at least, provide some indication of the effects of such persuasive mass communication.
Another aim of this question dealing with retention was investi gation of the degree to which the public used the information and opinion included in the editorials. If retention is accepted as one aim of com munication, a low level of retention could indicate a clogging of the channels of information, public indifference to the information, or a com bination of the two.
The third specific question investigated was: "What is the public reaction to this series of editorials as a whole?" It seemed that this 32 question would have significance for any future attempts to editorialize in a similar situation. The data gathered here could also provide further insight into the overall effects of persuasive mass communication -- especially if there was any "boomerang effect" on the editorials them selves.
Specific Editorials in Context
The eighteen editorials which provide a basis for this study were delivered between November 1, 1960, and February 28, 1961. All occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 10:15 P.M., but, as will be noted, they were scheduled on different nights of the week. Broadcast by WBRZ-TV, o they were available to most of the residents of metropolitan Baton Rouge.
The city of Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana and has experienced a tremendous spurt of growth since World War II. In 1940 the city included a population of only 35,000. Since that time an adjust ment of the city limits and an influx of new industry has resulted in an increase to 151,000 persons.
Since 1950 new industries have invested over one billion dollars in new and expanded plants in the area. Since 1955 alone, nine major chemical firms completed over $300,000,000 in new plant facilities. This industrial complex has developed in a community which was already the capital of the state and the home of two universities -- Louisiana State
University and Southern University (the latter being the largest negro
2 According to the American Research Bureau, 82.5% of the homes in the Baton Rouge survey area have a television set and can receive WBRZ-TV. The Baton Rouge Television Audience (Washington: The American Research Bureau, March, 1961), p. 1, 33 university in the South). The city is a mixture of old and new — a com bination of industrial center, southern town, seat of government, and university community. This results in a population of considerable di versity including old Southern families, industrial workers newly arrived
from all parts of the country, academic personnel for the two universi ties, politicians, educated and uneducated negroes, and university stu-
O dents from many parts of the state and nation.
Although, as has been noted, Mr. Manship scheduled a study of the integration problem in September of 1961, his first identified editorial was broadcast on the night of Tuesday, November 1. It was prompted by the vagueness of Governor Davis about his plans' for the first special session of the legislature. Mr. Manship called on the Governor to reveal his plans and give the people of the state an opportunity to voice their reactions prior to legislative action. He concluded the editorial with the declara
tion that "government by intrigue, mystery, silence and darkness smacks
to us of dictatorship."^
The Legislature convened on November 6 and, in the next few days,
the plans of the Governor were made clear. On Thursday, November 10, Mr.
Manship commented on the program presented. He began by describing the
two principal means proposed to thwart the rulings of the court -- inter position and closing the schools. It was pointed out that the first of
these would be tenable only if the United States were considered a feder
ation of separate states, but "that theory of the nature of our country
^The information on Baton Rouge is drawn from Baton Rouge: Its Dynamic Economy (Baton Rouge: The Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce, 1959).
^Douglas L. Manship, "Government in the Dark," Broadcast edito rial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 1, 1960. 34 was settled violently by the Civil War." The second means "would seem to constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law." Finally, he decried the nature of the special session itself, stating his opinion that "some few . . . would seem to be more intent on defying the federal government and seeing their opposition to desegregation gratified than on maintaining the traditional standards of governmental action or . . . the welfare of the people."^
On the Saturday prior to the scheduled desegregation of the schools in New Orleans, November 12, Mr. Manship appealed for reason and order. He first pointed out that there were orderly procedures for reg istering protest of a decision of the Supreme Court. "We may ask that
Court to reconsider its interpretation. That remedy having been exhausted, we may seek to amend the Constitution." Any other forms of opposition would be classifiable as rebellion and could lead to the use of force of arms for "the federal government cannot permit a state to flaunt the decrees of its courts." Unfortunately, "already the Governor and the
Legislature have surrendered to their emotions." If they persist in their
efforts to block integration, great harm could result. He closed with an
appeal for wisdom and restraint in the future actions of the Governor and
the Legislature.®
By November 14 it was apparent that the state government had no
intention of abandoning its opposition to desegregation. Consequently, on
Monday the 14th, Mr. Manship broadcast an appeal to the people of Louisiana.
^Douglas L. Manship, "The Legislature," Broadcast editorial deliv ered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 10, 1960.
®Douglas L. Manship, "Emotion, Reason, and the School Crisis," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 13, 1960. 35
This appeal opened with the assertion that the Legislature was inciting the people to violence. Mr. Manship called for order and concluded by
(1) urging the Governor to put a stop to the "Tragic comedy now in pro gress"; (2) asking the people of the state to inform the Governor of their views; and (3) urging "that all of us exercise reason and common sense in our handling of this crisis, before murder is committed in the name of freedom."^
Despite the December ruling of the Federal District Court in New
Orleans that the doctrine of interposition was unconstitutional, it soon became evident that the state was not to be deterred in its fight against desegregation. On December 9 Mr. Manship commented on the question of
"Civilization and Political Action." In this rather philosophical edito rial he pointed out that a mark of civilization "is the willingness of a people to determine their courses of action on the basis of sincere rational discussion conducted calmly by informed and responsible men."
This standard was then applied to the actions of the Governor and the Leg islature. "To refuse to follow the decisions of the federal courts after they have finally determined what action is required of us under the
Constitution is to throw aside the mark of civilization." Finally, after expanding this last point somewhat, he concluded with this appeal. "It is to be hoped that the Governor and the legislature will come to their senses and fulfill their public trusts in a manner befitting officials of a Q civilized community."0
^Douglas L. Manship, "The Great Tragedy," Broadcast editorial de livered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 14, 1960.
Douglas L. Manship, "Civilization and Political Action," Broad cast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 9, 1960. 36
Two days later Governor Davis Issued a call for a second special
session to consider the possibility of a tax increase. Reacting to this
on Monday, December 12, Mr. Manship raised several questions which were never answered satisfactorily. The questions were as follows:
1. What is the actual anticipated cost for whatever moves are now being planned in the executive sessions of the legislature in this matter of segregation? 2. What are the future financial plans for education? . . . Can the plans be financed without a new tax? 3. Will this legislature saddle the state with a new tax . . . and then fail in their objective because of . . . the federal courts? 4. It has been indicated the tax is to finance the program . . . for giving money to children who want to go to private schools, to avoid integration. . . . The tax would probably produce $45 million, but the need to finance such a program, if Virginia may be taken as an example, probably will not exceed $1 or $2 million, . . . What does Governor Davis plan to do with the rest of the money? 5. What will be the effect of a new sales tax on the hoped for industrial development of our state?^
On December 13 the legislature first heard of the letter from Dr.
Waldo McNeir and reacted by ordering an un-American activities probe. Mr.
Manship editorialized twice on the issues raised by this action. On Tues
day, December 13, he pointed out that the writing of a letter to an elected
representative would seem to be more American than un-American. In addition
to this, "it is ironic, too, that the House should hint that there is some
thing un-American about urging action consistent with the Constitution and
judgments of the United States.
On December 17, a Saturday, he took a tongue-in-cheek attitude
towards the state House Un-American Activities Committee investigation of
^Douglas L. Manship, "We Need to Know . . .," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 12, 1960.
^■^Douglas L. Manship, "The Legislature, the University, and the Professor," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 13, 1960. the entire L.S.U. faculty — an investigation to cost $60,000. As a help to the committee he suggested they broaden their investigation to assure
"that, in addition to there being no un-American activities at L.S.U., there are also no witches or demons . . . Really, what the state of
Louisiana needs more than anything else at the present time is a good, legislatively sponsored and conducted witch hunt.
Wednesday, December 21, was the date of Governor Davis' first de feat in his attempt to raise the Louisiana sales tax. That night Mr.
Manship congratulated the House of Representatives for what he considered a wise action. He also took the opportunity to express the opinion that needed revenues could be found if the Governor practiced the austerity he
"preached in his inaugural address.
The House of Representatives, however, returned from its Christ mas recess and immediately approved the proposed tax increase. On Thurs day, January 5, Mr. Manship protested this action and called upon the cit izens of the state to support his protest. He began by pointing out that
"the Legislature and the Governor have repeatedly abused their power by re fusing to act within the framework of the Constitution of the United
States." This was followed by his contention that the tax bill was not really intended to help fight integration but was requested "more probably to finance other projects not yet disclosed." The major point of this
^Douglas L. Manship, "Louisiana Witch Hunt," Broadcast edito rial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 17, 1960.
■ ^ D o u g l a s L. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 21, 1960. editorial, however, was the plea for public action. "We must have public condemnation if we are to preserve our form of government and keep our personal dignity and integrity," was his final appeal.^
Having pushed his tax increase through the House of Representa tives, Governor Davis turned to the state Senate. This was to prove an in surmountable hurdle, but on Saturday, January 7, before the issue was de cided, Mr. Manship spoke out quite strongly: "The great fraudulent pattern of the special legislative sessions now becomes apparent," he began. This pattern was seen to be an attempt of the administration and certain legis lative leaders to mask their primary purpose -- the tax increase -- behind a smoke-screen of anti-integration bills. "Yes, the real purpose of these special . . . sessions was to pass an additional sales tax . . . a new tax as odious as any tax can be." Following this he protested the politi cal pressures being applied to any legislators who opposed the administra tion, objected to the proposed fourth special session, and obliquely attacked the Governor and his legislative leaders.^
The following week, on Friday, January 13, he again spoke out against state actions and public apathy. He repeated his assertion that
"the battle may be much more for financial advantage and increased politi
cal control than it is for segregation." In conclusion he offered one ex
planation to the silence of the public in the course of the segregation
controversy. "One cannot help wondering whether there is not often too
^Douglas L. Manship, "The Greatest Tragedy," Broadcast edito rial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 5, 1961.
•^Douglas L. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 7, 1961. 39 much prudence and too little assumption of responsibility, and too much willingness to sacrifice principle for the temporary stay of official wrath."15
As will be described in greater detail below, prior to each edito rial Mr. Manship sent a telegram to Governor Davis and appropriate legisla tors advising them of the editorial and offering free time for rebuttal.
This offer was accepted only once, on January 14, and Mr. Manship found it necessary to reply on Tuesday, January 17. A representative of the Gover nor had "tried to dismiss recent reports of rapid growth in state employees under the Davis administration." Quoting from a report of the "Public
Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, an organization which has been doing research on state government for ten years," he restated facts to support his contentions of financial irresponsibility on the part of Governor
Davis.1®
In February it became apparent that desegregation was soon to be ordered in Baton Rouge by the Federal District Court in New Orleans.
Equally apparent, however, was the fact that no preparations were being made to implement the decision when it was handed down. Hoping to avoid a situation similar to that in New Orleans, Mr. Manship editorially sug gested, on Friday, February 3, that the residents of Baton Rouge begin to prepare themselves for acceptance of the law, "no matter how distasteful the thought may be to some." He pointed out that the controversy in New
15Douglas L. Manship, 'Moral Indifference," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, January 13, 1961.
1®Douglas L. Manship, "Setting the Record Straight," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 17, 1961. 40
Orleans had demonstrated the futility of resistance to federal law and closed by asking everyone to "act as becomes reasonable and law abiding men and women and to urge our school board and other public officials to do likewise.
The following week the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court in New Orleans ordering desegregation in Baton
Rouge. On Friday, February 10, Mr. Manship again urged public acceptance of the ruling and asked the school board to "proceed immediately to devise a plan which will at once honestly comply with the law."^®
Governor Davis, however, moved to prevent such action on the part of the school board by adding four new members. Mr. Manship commented on this action twice. On Thursday, February 16, prior to the passage of the bill permitting the "packing," he protested that the purpose of the bill was "to pack the Parish School Board with members not responsive to the will of the people of East Baton Rouge, but who will be completely sub servient to . . . those whose out-of-date political philosophy would pre fer to see the schools closed rather than accept . . . some type of in tegration."-^
Following passage of the bill, he attacked it on the grounds that the federal court would surely declare it unconstitutional. "When it the Court looks to the avowed purpose of the act.... and the other acts being considered....and of the entire special session....it will probably
•^Douglas L. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 3, 1961.
^Douglas L. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 10, 1961.
^ D o u g l a s l. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 16, 1961. 41 have little difficulty following the reasoning of the New Orleans decision and declaring the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 'packing' Act uncon stitutional."^®
Between these two editorials, on Friday, February 17, was an ex pression of opinion aimed at the two "Paid Informer" laws passed by the
Legislature. The bills were characterized as "legislation that would do credit to Hitler's Germany at the height of its infamy." One implication of these bills was seen to be the possibility of replacing "control of parents over their children . . . by a reign of authority based on infor mers." The editorial concluded with an offer of "adequate free time to the authors of these acts to clarify the content and purpose of these mea sures." The offer was never accepted.
These eighteen editorials provided a basis for the proposed study of the effects of persuasive mass communications. The complete text of each will be found in Appendix A.
The editorials were broadcast between 10:00 and 10:15 P.M. on the nignts indicated. They were of varying lengths, but none took more than five minutes to deliver. Before and after each, a slide identified the message as editorial comment by Douglas L. Manship, president and general manager of WBRZ-TV. A booth announcer also read this announcement and noted that free time had been offered for rebuttal by state officials.
The offer of free time took the form of the following telegram
^®Douglas L. Mansnip, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 20, 1961. 2i Douglas'L. Manship, untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 17, 1961. 42 sent to appropriate state officials prior to each editorial.
This is to advise expression of editorial opinion by this station on subject which you may wish to reply to. This is offer of equal time for any opinion you may wish to express.^2
Station WBRZ-TV made little effort to promote these editorials prior to their delivery. At the conclusion of the program ending at 10:00 an animated superimposition announcing that "another one of those edito rials is coming" was used occasionally. Unfortunately, the station has kept no record of the dates or the number of times this device was used.
Aside from this, no attempt was made to promote the editorials.
When asked the reason for this, Mr. Manship indicated that he felt much prior announcement would tend to attract primarily those people who agreed with the point of view he had expressed in earlier editorials.
He felt the most effective way of reaching those who did not agree with him, or were disinterested in the matter, was to catch them with a brief edito rial while they were waiting for another program.
The "setting" for these editorials --in terms of programs before and after and programs opposing them on the other channel --is also important. Table 1 includes this information for each of the editorials.
It is impossible to find accurate rating figures for each of the programs included in this table for the American Research Bureau surveys this area only three months out of the year --November, March, and one month in the summer. When possible, exact ratings for the programs will be given. In other cases the rating figures will be those computed for the time period in November or March, whichever is closer in point of time. Ratings for
0 9 “ •Telegram from Douglas L. Manship, President and General Manager, WBRZ-TV, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 43 all programs delivered prior to January 15 will be drawn from the November,
1961, American Research Bureau Report. Those for programs following this date will be drawn from the March, 1961, report.
TABLE 1
PROGRAM SETTING AND OPPOSING PROGRAMS OF EIGHTEEN BROADCAST EDITORIALS WITH RATING FIGURES FOR EACH
Editorial Preceeding Following Opposing Night Date Program Program Program Desk w/Rating w/Rating w/Rating Rating3 1. Nov. 1 Dean Martin Klondike Garry Moore 1960 Special 12.0 15.0 (32,0)b
2. Nov. 10 Two Faces The Outlaws Four Just 1960 West 18.0 Men 20.0 (9.0)b
3. Nov. 13 Alfred The Islanders Motion 1960 Hitchcock 14.0 Picture 26.0 24.0
4. Nov. 14 Peter Gunn John Wayne Twilight 1960 34.0 Special Zone 17.0 10.0
5. Dec. 9 CloserUp 77 Sunset Surfside 1960 "Featherbedding" Strip Six (25.0)b 23.0 12.0
6. Dec. 12 Peter Gunn Adventures in Twilight 1960 34.0 Paradise Zone 17.0 10.0
7. Dec. 13 John Payne Klondike Garry Moore 1960 Special 12.0 15.0 (32.0)b
8. Dec. 17 Wyatt Earp Michael Shayne Zane Grey 1960 13.0 12.0 Theatre 19.0
9. Dec. 21 The Rebel Riverboat Naked City 1960 26.0 14.0 17.0 44
TABLE 1 (Contd.)
Editorial Preceeding Following Opposing Night Date Program Program Program Desk v/Rating w/Rating w/Rating Rating3
10. Jan. 5 Two Faces The Outlaws Special 1961 West 18.0 News Review 20.0 (9.0)b
11. Jan. 7 Wyatt Earp Michael Shayne Zane Grey 1961 13.0 12.0 19.0
12. Jan. 13 Law & Mr. Jones 77 Sunset Strip Surfside Six 1961 25.0 23.0 12.0
13. Jan. 17 Art Carney Eisenhower Garry Moore 1961 Special Special 11.0 (32.0)b (12.0)b
14. Feb. 3 Law & Mr. Jones 77 Sunset Strip Surfside Six 1961 34.0 26.0 14.0
15. Feb. 10 Law & Mr. Jones 77 Sunset Strip Surfside Six 1961 34.0 26.0 14.0 23.0
16. Feb. 16 Two Faces West The Outlaws Gunslinger 1961 20.0 9.0 13.0 24.0
17. Feb. 17 Law & Mr. Jones The Islanders Surfside Six 1961 34.0 12.0 14.0 24.0
18. Feb. 20 Peter Gunn Adventures in Twilight Zone 1961 29.0 Paradise 9.0 24.0 13.0 a0n February 6, 1961, Channel Two began a news program called Night Desk. From this time on, all editorials'were placed in this program.
^Figures in parentheses represent ratings for the time period. Ratings for the specific program were not available. 45
Table 2 provides additional audience information. These figures indicate the estimated share of audience for the two Baton Rouge television stations computed for the time period including 10:00 - 10:15 P.M. by the
American Research Bureau in November and in March.
TABLE 2
SHARE OF AUDIENCE AND SETS IN USE FIGURES FOR TWO BATON ROUGE TELEVISION STATIONS
Nov. Mar. 1960 1961 WBRZ WAFB WBRZ WAFB
Share of Audience - 10:00 EM - Midnight
Monday through Friday ...... 59.6% 36.0% 56 .2% 43.7% Saturday ...... 36.5 60.9 59 .1 40.9 Sunday . . '...... 35.4 66.5 76 .2 22.6
Sets in Usea - 10:00 EM - Midnight
Monday through Friday ...... 17 .0% 16 .2% Saturday ...... 18.9 24.8 Sunday ...... 23 .4 20 .5 aSets in use -- the percentage of the television homes in the Baton Rouge area actually using their sets at a given hour.
The Questionnaire
To gather the information needed in this survey, it was decided to construct a four-page questionnaire in which the three questions posed earlier would be pursued in some detail. A copy of this questionnaire will be found in Appendix B.
It was felt that by the time the actual surveying began — early in March, 1961 -- the editorials could become an issue in themselves. They dealt with many aspects of a very controversial issue and, in some cases, 46
Mr. Manship took what many felt were extreme positions. To help reduce
the possibility of prejudiced resistance to questions about the editorials,
it was decided to construct the questionnaire in such a way as to mask the
purpose of the survey. Accordingly, the first page of the schedule was
devoted to questions in the general area of television programming. In
addition to this, all interviewers were instructed to refer to the survey
as a "Baton Rouge Television Survey." Only a small portion of the informa
tion gleaned from this portion of the schedule is pertinent to the subject
of broadcast editorials, but a summary of the data is included in Appendix
C.
As a part of the last question to deal with television programming,
respondents were asked whether or not they would watch television edito
rials regularly if scheduled by a local station. This represented the
beginning of the investigation of the first specific question noted
above: "How much support will the people of a community like Baton Rouge
give to the principle of licensee editorializing?" Following this, each
respondent was asked if he or she felt station owners had the right to
editorialize. Those answering "Yes" or "No" were given the opportunity to
explain their answers. Finally, respondents were asked if they felt the
licensee who did editorialize was required to make free time available to
opposing views and, further, if they felt this licensee had an obligation
to seek out these opposing views.
A major portion of the questionnaire was devoted to analysis of
the second question: "How much information have these people retained from
specific editorials?" First, respondents were asked if they had heard of
any broadcast editorials in this community. This became a cut-off point 47 in the interview for, if the answer was "No" interviewers were instructed to proceed directly to question 12 on the last page of the schedule. All those vrtio answered "Yes" were asked a series of questions about the station over which the editorials were broadcast, the name of the man delivering them, and the amount of conversation they stimulated.
Following this, respondents were asked to identify the issues discussed by Mr. Manship. Each was first asked: "What did the man talk about in the editorials you heard?" When the interviewer was satisfied that the respondent could recall no more issues, he gave the respondent a card on which were listed the issues discussed.^ At this point the inter viewer asked: "Recently Mr. Douglas Manship, owner of WBRZ-Channel 2, has editorialized on the following issues. Do you remember hearing him speak about any of these issues on the air?" For each issue recalled, whether
aided or unaided, the respondent was asked to identify the stand taken by
Mr. Manship and to indicate whether or not he agreed with this position.
The final page of the questionnaire was devoted to the third ques
tion: "What was the public reaction to this series of editorials as a whole?" Respondents were first invited to select the editorials which they
felt were more effective than the others. Next, they were asked whether
or not they felt the editorials in this community should be continued and why they felt this way. Finally, the respondents were urged to suggest
improvements to the series and to identify subjects they felt were unsuit
able for editorializing. The last four questions on the schedule were de
voted to classification information.
23 JThe procedure followed in the selection of these issues is described below on p. 49. Because it would always be in the hands of the person doing the interviewing, the questionnaire was mimeographed and included numbered spaces for the coding which was necessary before the data could be pro cessed.
Four rosters which were handed to respondents as memory aids should also be considered here. Cards "A" and "B" contained program in formation for the questions on page one, card "C" was used to help re spondents identify the editorials, and a fourth card contained classifi cation information. Copies of all four rosters are included in Appendix
D. Card "C" and the fourth card will be discussed below.
When considering the question of retention, it was decided that understanding of issues was probably more important than identification of specific editorials. Because of this, the problem was attacked in the following manner. Analysis of the content of the eighteen editorials which were to be studied indicated that these actually dealt with only thirteen specific issues. Some editorials were concerned with more than one of these, while, on the other hand, more than one editorial could touch upon the same issue. Respondents were to be asked to identify Mr.
Manship's position on each issue identified, so an attempt was made to make the wording of each as impartial as possible.
These issues are listed below as they appeared on card "C."
1. The secrecy about the original call for a special ses sion of the legislature.
2. The effect of the speeches and actions of the legisla ture on the people of Louisiana.
3. The amount of information given to the representatives from New Orleans about the plans of the legislature. 49
4. The number of people who are contacting their represen tatives about their feelings on the segregation-integration issue.
5. The strength of state law compared with the strength of Federal Court decisions.
6. The proposed 1% sales tax increase.
7. The censure by the legislature of the University pro fessor who wrote several legislators.
8. The proposed investigation of professors at L.S.U.
9. The increasing number of state Civil Service employees.
10. The plans to interpose the authority of the state between the federal government and the people of Louisiana.
11. The federal court order to integrate the schools in East Baton Rouge Parish.
12. The plans to increase the size of the East Baton Rouge School Board.
13. The proposed law making it a crime to urge parents to send their children to integrated schools and giving the fines to informers.
Judgment in the abstraction of these issues from the editorials was checked by several members of the Department of Speech of Louisiana
State University. In addition to this, Mr. Manship himself agreed that these were the essential issues. Worded as above, they became the basis for the analysis of this portion of the survey.
The fourth card included both the age and education groupings used to classify respondents. Subjects were handed the card and asked to identify each group by number only. It was felt that such a procedure might overcome some low-level resistance to the giving of this information. In practice, however, most interviewers found respondents would volunteer the
Specific information as soon as the subject was broached. 50
The Sample
The sample was selected from the residents of metropolitan Baton
Rouge only. Using Census Bureau information, the city was divided into twenty-nine census tract areas and specific numbers chosen from each in the following manner. Knowing the total population of Baton Rouge and the total population of each tract area, one is able to calculate the per centage of the total population living in these areas. The same percen tage of the sample was drawn from each.
For example: The population of Area #1 is 4,098 -- 2.71% of the total population of Baton Rouge. The original goal was a sample of 2,000 and 2.71% of this number is 54 people. This is the total number of people to be selected from this area. It was possible to break these figures down by sex and race as well, thus quotas for four classifications -- white men, white women, non-white men, and non-white women — were 24 assigned to each area. These figures are summarized in Table 3.
On the basis of this distribution each interviewer was given a specific assignment (i.e., twenty-seven white men), and sent to the appro priate area for interviewing. For each assignment the interviewer was directed to a specific street intersection and instructed to proceed around a specified block in a clock-wise direction, interviewing in each house until his quota was filled. If he completed his circuit of the block without completing the assignment, he was told to proceed around adjacent blocks in the same manner until he did so.
^Information is drawn from a special U.S. Census in December, 1958, and is quoted in: Baton Rouge; Its Dynamic Economy (Baton Rouge: The Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce, 1959). 51
TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF A PROPOSED SAMPLE OF 2,000 CLASSIFIED BY RACE AND SEX IN 29 AREAS OF BATON ROUGE
Area Total % Of Total Sample Distribution No. Pop. Total Sample W-Male W-Female N/W-Male N/W-Female
1 4,098 2.71% 54 27 27 0 0 2 6,183 4.10 82 41 41 0 0 3 5,961 3.95 79 36 39 2 2 4 4,519 3.00 60 30 30 0 0 5 9,107 6.03 121 55 58 4 4 6 9,804 6.50 130 64 66 0 0 7 5,477 3.63 73 30 31 6 6 8 4,152 2.75 55 26 29 0 0 9 8,539 5.66 113 29 33 24 27 10 10,231 6.78 136 2 3 61 70 11 3,256 2.16 43 17 17 5 4 12 2,465 1.63 33 13 20 0 0 13 5,009 3.32 66 18 21 12 15 14 2,981 1.98 40 17 19 2 2 15 6,048 4.01 80 16 17 21 26 16 5,515 3.66 73 26 29 8 10 17 6,270 4.16 83 38 40 2 3 18 2,501 1.66 33 16 17 0 0 19 3,502 2.32 46 23 23 0 0 20 1,860 1.23 25 12 13 0 0 21 4,549 3.01 60 5 5 23 27 22 4,808 3.19 63 2 1 27 33 23 3,347 2.22 44 21 23 0 0 24 4,368 2.90 58 12 12 16 18 25 6,985 4.63 93 6 7 37 43 26 6,299 4.17 83 39 39 2 3 27 3,410 2.26 45 9 10 13 13 28 7,300 4.84 97 62 35 0 0 29 2,335 1.55 31 15 16 0 0
Totals 150,879 100.01 1,999 707 721 265 306
4 52
Not all interviewers were able to complete their assignments and not all completed schedules were useable. Because of this, the informa tion included herein is based on a sample of 1,414, distributed as indi cated in Table 4.
TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE BY FOUR VARIABLES
Sex Race Male . . . 659 (46.6%) Non-White . . 320 (22.6%) Female . . 755 (53.4%) White . . . . 1,094 (77.4%)
Age Class 19-25. . . 247 (17.5%) Student . . . 67 ( 4.7%) 26-32. . . 204 (14.4%) I. . . . . 62 ( 4.4%) 33-40. . . 312 (22.1%) II. . . . . 142 (10.1%) 41-47. . . 210 (14.8%) III. . . . . 261 (18.5%) 48-55. . . 185 (13.1%) IV. . . . . 569 (40.2%) 56&up. . . 256 (18.1%) V. . . . . 313 (22.1%)
The race, sex, and age classifications used are easily understood, but the procedure by which respondents were divided into social classes does require some explanation. The procedure used was developed by A. B.
Hollingshead and is outlined in a pamphlet entitled Two Factor Index of
Social Position.25
The procedure for classifying by class is based on three assump tions :
(1) the existance of a status structure in the society; (2) positions in this structure are determined mainly by a few commonly accepted symbolic characteristics; and (3) the characteristics sym bolic of status may be scaled and combined by the use of statistical
(New Haven: Bv the author, 1957.) 53
procedures so that a researcher can quickly, reliably, and meaning fully stratify the population under study. ®
The two factors used to determine the social position of an in dividual are the occupation of the head of the household and the education of the respondent. "Occupation is presumed to reflect the skill and power individuals possess as they perform the many maintenance functions in the society. Education is believed to reflect not only knowledge, but also cultural tastes."27
Each of these factors is scaled according to the following sys tem:
A. The Occupational Scale2**
1. Higher Executives, Proprietors of Large Concerns, and Major Professionals 2. Business Managers, Proprietors of Medium Sized Businesses, and Lesser Professionals 3. Administrative Personnel, Small Independent Bus inesses, and Minor Professionals 4. Clerical and Sales Workers, Technicians, and Owners of Little Businesses (value under $6,000) 5. Skilled Manual Employees 6. Machine Operators and Semi-Skilled Employees 7. Unskilled Employees
26Ibid.. p. 2.
27Ibid.
2®"This scale is premised upon the assumption that occupations have different values attached to them by the members of our society. The hierarchy ranges from the low evaluation of unskilled physical labor to wards the more prestigeful use of skill, through the creative talent of ideas, and the manipulation of men. The ranking of occupational functions implies that some men exercise control over the occupational pursuits of other men. Normally, a person who possesses highly trained skills has Control over several other people." Ibid., p. 8. (A more complete ver sion of this scale, with examples of each classification provided by the author, will be found in Appendix E.) 54
B. Pie Educational Scale^
1. Graduate Professional Training (Persons who com plete a recognized professional course leading to a graduate degree) 2. Standard College or University Graduate (All in dividuals who complete a four-year college or univer sity course leading to a recognized college degree) 3. Partial College Training (Individuals who complete at least one year but not a full college course) 4. High School Graduates (All secondary school grad uates) 5. Partial High School (Individuals who complete the tenth or the eleventh grade, but do not complete high school) 6. Junior High School (Individuals who complete the seventh through the ninth grade) 7. Less Than Seven Years of School (Individuals who do not complete the seventh grade, irrespective of the amount of education they did receive)
To calculate the social position of an individual by this system, factors of occupation and education are first combined by weighing the individual scores obtained from each scale position. The factor weight for occupation is 7 and that for education is 4. These weighted scores are then added together.
For example: John Smith is the owner of a small clothing store valued at about $25,000. He completed high school and the first year of college. His social position is computed as follows:
Factor Scale Score Factor Weight Score X Weight Occupation 3 7 21 Education 3 4 12
Social Position Score - 33
^ " T h e educational scale is premised upon the assumption that men and women who possess similar educations will tend to have similar tastes and similar attitudes, and that they will also tend to exhibit similar behavior patterns." Ibid., p. 9. 55
Hollingshead suggests that these scores be broken into groups and a class level be assigned to each group. With one exception, noted below, the class groupings used in this survey are based on the score ranges sug gested by Hollingshead in his work with this system. The following ranges were used:3®
Social Class Ranee of Computed Scores I 11-14 II 15-27 III 28-43 IV 44-60 V 61-77
Because Baton Rouge is the home of Louisiana State University, a certain number of students were included in the sample. These were as signed to a separate class. The other classes, I through V, represent a continuum ranging from individuals with graduate professional training and responsible positions to those with less than seven years of schooling working as unskilled laborers. Each individual is placed within this range and assigned a class position which is a reasonably accurate pre dictor of social behavior.3^
It should be pointed out that this is a contrived device developed by social scientists to facilitate the classification of individuals to be studied. As such, it has been tested and found useful by Hollingshead and his colleagues. The device was adopted here because it was felt that analysis of reaction to the editorials by class might be of some value.
30Ibid.. p. 10.
31"The assumption of a meaningful correspondence between an esti mated class position of individuals and their social behavior has been validated by the use of factor analysis. The validation study demonstrated the existance of classes when mass communication data are used as criteria of social behavior." Ibid., p. 11. 56
Survey Technique
With few exceptions, the interviewers were chosen from the student bodies of the Louisiana State University and Southern University. White students from L.S.U. were asked to interview white respondents and negro students from Southern University interviewed non-white respondents. In terviewers were permitted to select their interviewing assignments from those available and were given oral instructions prior to receiving the assignment packet.
Each packet contained all the questionnaires needed, a supply of roster cards, a map of Baton Rouge with the assigned area clearly out lined and the street intersection marked, a ten-page instruction booklet, and a supplementary instruction sheet spelling out the street intersection
and the pattern the interviewer was to follow in moving from house to
house.^
The schedule itself was filled in by the interviewer, who asked
all questions personally. Many of the items could be completed by plac
ing a mark in an appropriate box. In other cases students were instructed
to be quite careful about recording answers exactly as given. Although
these students were told the purpose of this study -- and of the major
emphasis on editorializing — they were instructed to maintain throughout
that they were engaged only in a general television survey.
Although the survey was supported by Mr. Manship financially,
neither interviewers nor respondents were told of this connection at any
time during the collection of the data.
3^a copy of the instruction booklet and a sample supplementary instruction sheet will be found in Appendix F. Analysis of Data
All data included in each schedule were coded in such a way as to allow for entry on IBM Data Cards -- each questionnaire filling two cards with data and classification items. The cards were analyzed on the IBM
650 and 1620 Computers available on the L.S.U. Campus. Most of the in formation included in this report is drawn from frequency counts and the computation of simple percentages, but the use of the computer, with its auxiliary banks of sorters and printers, saved many hours of tedious counting and computation.
Information gathered from a preliminary analysis of this data 33 was included in a report published by station WBRZ-TV in August of 1961.
This report included analysis of the responses to questions on program preferences and listening habits as well as a less detailed exposition of community reaction to the television editorials delivered by Mr. Manship.
The material discussed in the following chapters will include only that dealing with television editorials. The questions on pro gramming were seen only as a device with which to mask the purpose of the
survey and the information gathered, with one exception, has little relevance to a discussion of broadcast editorials.
All the data concerning editorials were gathered and analyzed.
The information was then grouped under major headings determined by the
three questions which were to be the goals of this survey.^ This in-
John H. Pennybacker, A 1961 Survey of Reaction to Television Editorials in Metropolitan Baton Rouge (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: by the author and WBRZ-TV, 1961).
•^S u p r a .. pp. 32-34. 58 formation will be presented in the three following chapters. Chapter IV will deal with community support for the principle of television edito rializing, Chapter V with recall of specific issues, and Chapter VI with overall reaction to the series. CHAPTER IV
SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF LICENSEE EDITORIALIZING
Introduction
As discussed in Chapters I and II, the mass media have long been seen as effective means of insuring that the people of a democracy re ceive the information they need to discharge their decision-making functions.
In recent years, the Federal Communications Commission has concluded that editorials broadcast by licensees of radio and television stations are ati important part of that information. Consequently, the Commission has em barked on a program of active encouragement of editorials. Before investi gating how the residents of Baton Rouge reacted to and used a specific series of editorials, it was decided to probe community feelings about the general principle of editorializing by broadcast licensees. In short, do the residents of Baton Rouge agree that such expressions of opinion are important?
Regular Viewing of Broadcast Editorials
This question was first approached in the investigation of general program preferences. All respondents were given a list containing fourteen different types of television program (with examples) and were asked whether or not they would watch each type regularly. The last classifica tion on the list was "Editorials by station owners."^- A summary of the response to this part of the question is found in Table 5.
*See Appendix C for a copy of the entire list of program types. 59 6a
TABLE 5
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS STATING THEY WOULD OR WOULD NOT REGULARLY WATCH EDITORIALS BY STATION OWNERS
Classification Yes No
All Respondents (1,414) ...... 64.67.
Sex - Race White Male (502)...... 65.7 White Female (592)...... 72.1 Non-White Male (158)...... 42.4 Non-White Female (164)...... 44.5
Age 19-25 (247) . , 66.3 26-32 (204) . 62.4 33-40 (312) . 71.5 41-47 (210) . 63.3 48-55 (185) . 57.3 56&up (256) . 62.9
Class Student (67) . 61.2 I (62) . 66.1 II (142) . 51.4 III (261) . 72.8 IV (569) . 70.1 V (313) . 54.3
Approximately two-thirds of all respondents indicated they would not be willing to watch such editorials on a regular basis. With the ex ception of non-whites, all the sub-groups of the sample expressed similar disinterest. Over half the non-white respondents contacted, however, in
dicated they would watch editorials regularly.
The only television editorials most respondents in this community have been exposed to are those by Mr. Manship. In the months prior to this
survey, the editorial positions he assumed were likely to be accepted by 61 non-white listeners somewhat more readily than by whites. This would seem
to indicate that response to this question was influenced by reaction to
those editorials heard previously.
Support for the Principle of Editorializing
The mention of licensee editorializing provided a lead-in to a
series of questions on the general principle of editorializing. The
first of these questions was:
One of the types of program listed in the last question was "Editorials by station owners." Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on controversial issues on the air?
Table 6 summarizes the response to this.
Support for the right to editorialize is generally quite high.
Here again, this support is highest among non-white respondents, but over
half of each sex-race group agrees with the principle. Within age and
class groups it seems evident that greatest support for editorializing
lies in the younger and "upper" class groups. This results in an un
usual combination of non-whites, "upper" classes, and younger respondents
agreeing on this specific right of the owner of a station.
This question was pursued by requesting that all respondents who
answered "Yes" or "No" to the above question give reasons for their answer.
They were allowed free choice of response. The most common replies are
summarized in Table 7.
One of two reasons was advanced by 72% of those who answered
"Yes." The most common response was some variation on: "It is his right
as the owner of the station." This was also the most common response of 62
TABLE 6
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ANSWERING YES. NO, OR DON'T KNOW TO:
"Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on controversial issues on the air?"
Classification Yes No Don't Know
All respondents (1414) .... 58.3% 29.8% 11.8%
Sex-Race White Male (502) . . 59.2 36.7 4.2 White Female (592) . . 53.5 32.1 14.3 Non-White Male (158) . . 66.5 11.4 22.2 Non-White Female (164) . . 65.8 17.7 16.5
Age 19-25 (247) ...... 68.7 26.0 5.3 26-32 (204) ...... 62.9 30.2 6.8 33-40 (312) ...... 55.1 33.0 11.9 41-47 (210) ...... 53.3 36.2 10.5 48-55 (185) ...... 62.7 25.9 11.4 55&up (256) ...... 49.6 27.0 23.4
Class Students ( 67) ...... 70.1 26.8 3.1 I ( 6 2 ) ...... 85.4 12.9 1.7 II (142) ...... 69.0 26.1 4.9 Ill (261) ...... 57.1 37.9 5.0 IV (569) ...... 51.5 35.3 13.0 V (313) ...... 59.1 18.5 22.4 63
TABLE 7
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS GIVING VARIOUS REASONS FOR THINKING A STATION OWNER DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO EDITORIALIZE ON THE AIR
Sex-Race NON NON Reason Given ALLW/MW/F W/MW/F (825)a (295)a (317)a (105)a (108)a
1. His right as owner of the station 41.8% 39.6% 51.4% 20.0% 40.7% 2. Everyone has right to speak as he wishes 31.0 23.4 36.3 38.1 29.6 3. He has same rights as a newspaper owner 8.3 17.6 4.7 1.9 0.0 4. They inform the public & are educational 7.8 8.8 3.1 13.3 5.6 5. They are interesting 2.7 1.7 2.2 5.7 4.6 6. Stimulates interest and stirs up thought 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.9 7. He has better access to news and fact 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.9 2.8 8. His opinions might be helpful 1.5 0.6 0.9 3.8 3.7 9. DON'T KNOW 5.2 8.1 2.8 3.8 8.3
Age Reason Given 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up n.fi9^a (129la (172)a fll2)a mfila n 27^a
1. His right as owner of the station 48.5% 41.9% 38.2% 38.4% 49.2% 35.5% 2. Everyone has right to speak as he wishes 25.4 27.1 40.1 35.7 27.6 29.1 3. He has same rights'as a newspaper owner 13.6 16.3 8.1 5.4 5.1 2.4 4. They inform the public & are educational 6.0 3.9 5.2 9.8 9.5 15.7 5. They are interesting 3.6 3.9 2.9 1.8 0.0 3.9 6. Stimulates interest and stirs up thought i.2 3.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 4.7 7. He has better access to news and fact 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.9 8. His opinions might be helpful 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.4 9. DON'T KNOW 6.5 0.8 7.6 9.8 4.3 1.6 64
TABLE 7--Continued
Class Reason Given Stdnt II III IV V ( 47)a ( 53)a C 98)a (149)a (293)a (185)a
1. His right as owner of the station 42.6% 39.4% 35.1% 51.7% 39.9% 39.6% 2. Everyone has right to speak as he wishes 17.0 39.6 28.6 28.9 35.1 29.4 3. He has same rights as newspaper owner 25.5 18.9 18.9 18.7 3.7 2.1 4. They inform the public & are educational 6.3 3.8 9.1 6.7 8.8 8.5 5. They are interesting 0.0 1.9 1.0 1.3 4.5 3.2 6 . Stimulates interest and stirs up thought 4.2 0.0 2.0 3.4 1.4 0.0 7. He has better access to news and fact 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.4 2.7 8. His opinions might be helpful 4.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 3.7 9. DON'T KNOW 0.0 1.9 5.1 6.7 5.2 6.4 aN - the number in each group answering "Yes" to: "Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on controversial issues on the air?" almost every sub-group. The second most frequent response was: "Every one has the right to speak as he wishes."
It seems significant that neither of these reasons indicates any real enthusiasm for the editorials themselves. A large part of the sam ple will support the right to editorialize only on the basis of what re spondents see as citizenship or ownership rights of a station owner.
This is also true of the third most common response: "He should have the same rights as the owner of a newspaper." Apparently only 15% of the sample saw any real value in the practice of editorializing. An interesting shift in the order of this and the fourth most common re 65 sponse is revealed by an analysis of the various sub-groupings. Re sponse number four for the total sample is: "They inform the public and are educational." This reason is the third most common among all non whites, older respondents, and those in the "lower" classes. In each of these groups, the similarities between newspaper and station ownership drop to fourth position. Thus these three groups seem more aware of the importance of broadcast editorials.
Another implication of these results is of interest also. It has been shown that the three most common reasons for giving the owner the right to editorialize stemmed from what respondents apparently saw as basic rights of a station owner. When these reasons are examined closely, however, it can be seen that none of them are completely sound.
In its various forms, the first response generally implied that the owner of a station has the right to program what he pleases -- a typical response being: "It is his station, he can do what he wants with it." This, of course, is simply not true. The licensee may own the building and the equipment, but he does not own the portion of the spec trum which is allotted him for the transmission of his message.^ This is one basis for the supervision exercised by the Federal Communications
Commission. Also, despite the implications of the second response, every one does not have the right to speak as he wishes. Our right to freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom, and this is particularly true when
"A fundamental premise of the American system of broadcasting is that there can be no proprietary right in any frequency orchannel, that the spectrum is a natural resource belonging to the entire national public, and that the value to be derived from this concept would be destroyed by uncontrolled private exploitation." U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Network Broadcasting. Report No. 1297, 85th Congress, 2d Session, 1958, p. 54. 66 a person tries to broadcast what he has to say. Finally, the very exist ence of the Federal Communications Commission points to the fact that a station owner has much less freedom than the owner of a newspaper. Thus the reasons advanced by 80% of those favoring the right to editorialize seem to be based on some basic misconceptions of the rights and duties of broadcasters.
There was more diversity of opinion among those who felt the station owner did not have the right to editorialize. Table 8 lists the more common opinions in order of frequency of occurrence. Before dis cussing some of the results, though, it must be noted that three of the groups into which this portion of the sample is divided are quite small.
Only eight members of class I, eighteen students, and eighteen non-white males felt a station should not editorialize. These are small groups with which to work and any conclusions drawn from them must be quite tentative.
The most common reason advanced for denying the station owner the
right to editorialize was some version o f : "Television should serve the
public interest and not advocate." These respondents apparently agree
with the original F.C.C. opinion on the issue of editorializing.^
The second most common response was this: "He has a special
position and takes unfair advantage of it." These two responses, which
seem to be little more than two approaches to the same fundamental ob
jection, represent the first or second choice of almost every sub-group.
O -'Supra.. p. 10. 67
TABLE 8
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS GIVING VARIOUS REASONS FOR THINKING A STATION OWNER DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO EDITORIALIZE ON THE AIR
Sex-Race Non Non Reason Given AH W/M W/F W/M W/F (422)a (186)a (189)a ( 18)a ( 29)a
1. Stations should serve pub lie & not advocate 15.8% 19.9% 12.1% 11.1% 17.2% 2. Special position gives un fair advantage 14.7 12.4 16.9 33.3 3.4 3. No personal feelings should be on the air 10.2 9.1 12.7 0.0 6.9 4. No one represents the opposition 9.0 9.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 5. Gives the owner too much power to misuse 7.8 9.1 6.3 0.0 13.8 6 . TV exerts too much in fluence on public mind 4.5 10.2 9.0 0.0 6.9 7. He (Mr. Manship) is too biased 4.5 3.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 8. He has no right to try to influence public 4.3 2.7 5.8 11.1 0.0 9. Would hurt station business 4.3 4.3 4.7 0.0 3.4 10.Owners not expert on issues they discuss 4.1 5.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 11 .DON’T KNOW 7.8 7.0 7.9 22.2 17.2 Age Reason Given 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up ( 64la ( 62)a (103)a ( 76 )a ( 48 )a ( 69)a
1. Station should serve pub lic & not advocate 21.9% 16.1% 16.5% 19.7% 8.3% 10.1% 2. Special position gives un fair advantage 12.5 8.1 20.4 17.1 12.5 13.0 3. No personal feelings should be on the air 6.3 9.7 16.6 5.3 12.5 8.7 4. No one represents the opposition 7.8 12.9 5.8 6.6 16.7 8.7 5. Gives the owner too much power to misuse 10.9 4.8 8.7 6.6 8.3 7.2 6. TV exerts too much in fluence on public mind 18.8 11.3 9.7 5.3 4.2 4.3 68
TABLE 8--Continued
Age Reason Given 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up ( 64)a ( 62 )a (103)a ( 76)a ( 48 )a ( 69)a
7. He (Mr. Manship) is too biased 6.3 4.8 1.0 5.3 4.2 4.3 8. He has no right to try to influence public 7.9 3.2 2.9 3.9 8.4 1.4 9. Would hurt station business 3.1 1.6 4.8 5.3 10.4 1.4 10.Owners not expert on issues they discuss 4.7 6.5 3.9 2.6 0.0 5.8 11 .DON'T KNOW 12.5 9.7 7.8 5.3 2.1 8.7 Class Reason Given Stdnt I II III IV V ( 18)a ( 8)a ( 37)a ( 99)a (202)a ( 58)a
1. Stations should serve pub lic & not advocate 38.9% 37.5% 10.8% 17.2% 13.9% 13.8% 2. Special position gives un fair advantage 16.6 0.0 21.6 14.1 15.8 8.6 3. No personal feelings should be on the air 5.5 25.0 10.8 10.1 10.9 6.9 4. No one represents the opposition 0.0 0.0 10.8 15.1 8.4 3.4 5. Gives the owner too much power to misuse 0.0 12.5 5.4 10.1 7.9 6.9 6. TV exerts too much in fluence on public mind 44.4 0.0 8.1 5.0 8.9 6.8 7. He (Mr. Manship) is too biased 16.6 12.5 5.4 1.0 5.5 1.7 8. He has no right to try to influence public 0.0 0.0 5.4 6.1 4.0 3.4 9. Would hurt station business 5.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 3.0 8.6 10.Owners not expert on issues they discuss 5.5 0.0 10.8 2.0 5.0 0.0 11 .DON'T KNOW 11.1 0.0 10.8 6.1 6.4 12.1
aN - the number in each group answering "No" to: "Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on controversial issues on the air?" 69
Most of the additional reasons advanced are in the same vein.
They seem to reflect a fear that the expression of opinion on television
or radio is, in some way, a misuse of power which could be dangerous to
the public. There are, however, a few interesting differences in emphasis
to be seen among the various sub-groups.
First, greatest concern over stations serving the public and not
advocating was expressed by younger respondents and those in the "upper"
classes. The rather abstract concept of public service is invoked less
often by older respondents and subjects in class IV and V. These groups
seem more concerned with the specific problems of "unfair advantage" and
the expression of "personal feelings" on the air.
In addition to this, the problem of television exerting ex
cessive influence on the mind of the public is of greatest concern to
younger respondents. These individuals, b o m into a society which takes
radio and television for granted, seem more impressed by their power to
influence than do those who witnessed the growth of these media.
In summary, respondents who feel a station owner has the right
to editorialize outnumber those who do not by two to one. Mose of those
who would deny this right do so out of fear of a possible misuse of power
and exploitation of a public resource. Few of those who would grant the
right, however, do so out of any sense of the value and importance of
another channel of information. Thtybase their decision instead on some
misconceptions of the rights of a station owner. 70
Responsibilities Placed on the Licensee Who Editorializes
To probe feelings about editorializing even further, respondents were asked the following question:
If he does present his own personal views, do you think he is obligated to make FREE time available to anyone who wants to answer or take an opposing point of view?
These results are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS THINKING A STATION OWNER WHO EDITORIALIZES IS OR IS NOT OBLIGATED TO OFFER FREE TIME FOR THE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW
Classification Is Is Not Don't Know
All Respondents (1414) ...... 66.8% 23.7% 9.5%
Sex and Race White Men (502)...... 70.5 25.3 4.2 White Women (592)...... 68.1 18.8 13.1 Non-White Men (158)...... 54.4 36.7 8.9 Non-White Women (164).... 58.5 25.6 15.9
Age 19-25 (247) ...... 75.2 21.1 3.7 26-32 (204) ...... 67.8 30.2 2.0 33-40 (312) ...... 65.7 22.1 12.2 41-47 (210) ...... 69.5 22.4 8.1 48,55 (185) ...... 57.8 30.8 11.4 55&up (256) ...... 63.3 18.8 18.0
Class Students (67) ...... 74.6 23.8 1.6 I ( 62) ...... 72.5 25.8 1.7 II (142) ...... 66.9 25.3 7.8 Ill (261) ...... 69.3 25.3 5.4 IV (569) ...... 67.3 21.2 11.5 V (313) ...... 60.7 25.6 13.7 71
It can be seen from this table that, In most cases, over two- thirds of the respondents in each group agree that a station owner Is ob ligated to make free time available to opposing views if he editorializes.
The Federal Communications Commission, however, feels that the owner must do more than merely make a passive offer of free time. In the second Mayflower decision the Commission held "broadcasters have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues."^ This "affirmative duty" has generally been interpreted to mean that a licensee who editorializes must actively seek out the opposing view. Because of this, a second question was asked of all respondents who answered "Yes" to the above question.
This was:
Do you think he is obligated to seek out the opposing point of view and see to it that this point of view is expressed on the air?
In Table 10 the data gathered from this question is combined with the in formation in Table 9 to give some indication of the degree of responsi bility each group will fix upon the broadcaster. This table, in effect,
splits the "IS" column on Table 9 into two groups -- those believing the owner should seek out the opposition and those who will settle for a passive offer of free time. Answers of "Don't Know" to the second ques tion are assigned to the "Free Time Only" group.
The only trend of any significance to be seen in these tables is
found among class groups. In Table 9 it can be seen that, although the
percentages feeling a station owner has no free time obligations remains
constant, the percentage of those saying he is obligated drops as one
^Supra.. p. 11. 72
TABLE 10
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS FIXING DIFFERENT DEGREES OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THE STATION OWNER WHO EDITORIALIZES
Free Time & Free Time Neither Don't Classification Seeking Out Only Obligation Know
All Respondents (1414) 34.3% 32.2% 23.7% 9.5%
Sex-Race White Men (502) 33.3 37.0 25.5 4.2 White Women (592) 37.5 31.5 17.9 19.2 Non-White Men (158) 25.3 29.1 36.7 19.0 Non-White Women (164) 34.1 23.8 26.2 22.6
Age 19-25 (247) • • • • 35.6 39.3 21.1 3.7 26-32 (204) • • • i 39.1 28.7 30.2 2.0 33-40 (312) • • • • 33.4 32.3 22.1 12.2
41-47 (210) • • • • • 35.3 33.9 22.4 8.1
48-55 (185) • • • • 28.7 29.1 30.8 11.4
55&up (256) • • • • 34.0 30.3 18.7 18.0
Class Student ( 67) • • • • 26.9 48.6 23.9 1.6 I ( 62) • • • • 29.1 43.7 25.7 1.7 II (142) • • • • 35.2 31.6 25.4 7.8 III (261) • t • * 31.8 37.5 25.3 5.4 IV (569) • • • • 38.4 28.8 21.3 11.5 V (313) • • • • 31.3 29.4 25.6 13.7
moves from Students and class I to class V. This is matched by an in crease in expressed uncertainty about the question. Aside from this class difference, there seems to be little variation in response percentages among groups.
In summary, a clear majority of all respondents will defend the right of a station owner to editorialize on the air and two-thirds of all respondents feel this right implies the responsibility of providing free 73 time for opposing views. Only one-third of the sample would go so far as to require the owner actively to "seek out" this opposing view.
Conclusions
What answer, then, can be given to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: "Do the people of Baton Rouge agree that such expressions of opinion are i m p o r t a n t ? Many factors seem to point to a negative response.
In the first place, only one-third of the respondents indicated any interest in watching editorials regularly. In addition, the reasons advanced by the 70% who would grant the station owner the right to edito rialize show little realization of the value of such broadcast. Finally, there is some indication of a substantial fear of the possible effects of such a use of television.
Another point seems important here also. Response to several of the questions discussed above reveals some unfortunate gaps in public knowledge. It has already been noted that the reasons offered to justify licensee editorializing reflect a lack of understanding of the obliga tions of a licensee to the public he serves. A group of people who will say "it is his station, he can do what he wants with it," are not likely to supervise the operation of that station very effectively. Another indication of this lack of understanding is the fact that only one-third of those asked would require broadcasters to seek out opposing views, although many did feel that free time should at least be offered.
Of course, there were few previous editorials in this community - at least on subjects of such potential importance to the community. There
5Supra.. p. 61. has been no real stimulus to prod the people of Baton Rouge into under standing them, their nature, or the nature of broadcasting. Nevertheless, if the people of this community are to supervise effectively the broad cast media which serve them, some such stimulus should be provided.
In short, these preliminary findings indicate that reception and understanding of this channel of information is apparently not that en visioned by the Federal Communications Commission and the proponents of the Social Responsibility theory of mass communications. The following chapter will deal with the related problem of retention of information included in the editorials delivered by Mr. Manship. CHAPTER V
INFORMATION RETAINED FROM SPECIFIC EDITORIALS
Introduction
As described in Chapters II and III, the community of Baton
Rouge was exposed to a series of eighteen television editorials in the period between November 1, 1960, and February 28, 1961. Each of these
editorials focused on some facet of a complex problem with which the
entire state was confronted at the time and, when delivered, each
touched on a subject which was being covered by all media. The issues
discussed, then, were current, controversial, and of interest to many
segments of the public. The editorials fit well within the definition
of editorializing advanced by the Federal Communications Commission:
The use of radio facilities by the licensees thereof for the expression of the opinions and ideas of the licensees on the various controversial and significant issues of interest to the members of the general public afforded radio (or tele vision) service by the particular station.1
This provided an opportunity to study the effects of broadcast edito
rials in a situation of some "social unrest."
Rather than ask respondents to judge whether or not a given
editorial had any effect on their decisions, it was decided to concen
trate on an analysis of information retention. It was felt that if an
individual was able to remember an issue, identify the stand taken by Mr.
^Supra.. p. 9.
75 76
Manship, and decide whether or not he agreed with it, the probability was
that the editorial had, in some degree, entered into the decision making
process. Whether the issue was recalled with or without aid, and the
accuracy with which Mr. Manship's position was identified would then pro
vide some indication of the importance of the issue in the mind of the
respondent. As will be seen, however, such a detailed analysis was not
possible because of a low level of identification.
Community Awareness of the Editorials
The question to be considered in this chapter is: "How much in
formation have these people retained from specific editorials?" In con
sidering this question, all respondents were first asked:
Have you heard of anyone editorializing on the air in this way in the last six months?
Table 11 shows that slightly less than 60% of the 1,414 persons
interviewed were aware of anyone in this community editorializing on the
air. Knowledge was more common among whites than non-whites and, within
each group, more common among men than women.
A difference among classes is also evident. While 75% of the
students and 80% of class I had heard of these, this was true of only
33% of class V. A pattern is not so clear among age groups, but there is
some indication of less awareness among older respondents.
This indicates greatest exposure among younger white men in
"upper" classes. A high percentage of all groups knew of the editorials,
though. With the exception of class V and 34% of the non-white women,
50% of all groups had at least heard of them. 77
TABLE 11
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD AND HAD NOT HEARD OF ANYONE EDITORIALIZING ON THE AIR
Classification Had Had Not
All Respondents (1,414) ...... 41.4%
Sex-Race White Male (502)...... 26.5 White Female (592)...... 54.7 45.3 Non-White Male (158)...... 50.0 Non-White Female (164)...... 65.9
Age 19-25 (247) , 35.8 26-32 (204) 42.0 33-40 (312) ...... 61.9 38.1 41-47 (210) 34.3 48-55 (185) 49.2 56&up (256) 50.8
Class Students ( 67) 23.9 I ( 62) ...... 82.2 17.8 II (142) 24.0 III (261) 29.6 IV (569) 42.0 V (313) 66.8
Table 12* displays the results of the next question:^
Have you personally heard any of these editorials?
It can be seen from this that most respondents who had heard of the edito
rials had also heard at least one of them.
^To this point, all percentages were computed from a base of 1,414, unless otherwise indicated. In many of the tables which follow the base will be 828, the total number of respondents indicating they had heard of someone editorializing on the air. Such tables will be marked with a (*) in the tables themselves and when they are referred to in the text. 78
TABLE 12*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ANSWERING "YES" TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION WHO HAVE AND HAVE NOT PERSONALLY HEARD ANY EDITORIALS
Classification Have Have Not Don't Know
All Respondents (828) ...... 94.7% 4.8% 0.5%
Sex-Race White Male (369). . . . 94.8 5.1 0.1 White Female (324). . . . 92.6 6.5 0.9 Non-White Male ( 79). . . . 100.0 0.0 0.0 Non-White Female ( 56). . . . 96.4 3.6 0.0
Age 19-25 (158)...... 91.1 8.9 0.0 26-32 (119). . 3.4 0.0 33-40 (193). . 3.6 0.0 41-47 (138)...... 91.3 6.5 2.2 48-55 (94). . 3.2 2.1 56&up (126). . 2.4 0.0
Class Students ( 51). . 3.9 0.0 I ( 51). . 1.9 1.9 II (108). . 4.6 0.0 Ill (184). . 6.0 1.1 IV (330). . 5.5 0.0 V (104). . 2.9 1.1
Table 13* indicates that most of those who had heard of the edito rials were aware of the station over which they were broadcast. This high degree of station identification may be surprising, but station WBRZ has long been dominant in the Baton Rouge area.
It should be noted that those identifying WDSU-TV may not have been in error. This New Orleans station has been carrying a regular ser- ies of editorials and can be received by anyone in the community with a reasonably high antenna tower. 79
TABLE 13*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS KNOWING OF EDITORIALS WHO IDENTIFIED VARIOUS RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS AS THE SOURCE OF EDITORIALS
Sex-Race Call-Letters of Stations All W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female (828) (369) (324) ( 79) ( 56) 1. WBRZ-TV ...... 86.5% 88.6% 82.5% 92.4% 85.7% 2. W D S U - T V ...... 4.5 6.2 3.8 0.0 3.6 3. WAFB-TV ...... 2.1 1.6 1.9 2.6 5.4 4. WJBO-Radio ...... 1.1 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 5. WDSU- 11 ...... 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. WLCS- " ...... 0.7 0.3 0.0 5.2 1.8 7. WWL- " ..... 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 8. WNOE- " ...... 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. KNOE-TV ...... 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 10.KALB-Radio ...... 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 ll.WXOK- " ...... 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.DON'T KNOW ...... 8.8 6.5 13.3 2.6 7.2 Age Call-Letters of Stations 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (1263 1. WBRZ-TV ...... 75.3% 85.7% 92.2 % 88.4% 89.4% 88.1% 2. W D S U - T V ...... 8.2 4.2 2.1 4.3 2.1 5.5 3. WAFB-TV ...... 1.3 1.7 1.0 3.6 3.2 2.4 4. WJBO-Radio ...... 2.6 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 5. WDSU- " . . . . . 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. WLCS- " ...... 0.7 0.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 7. WWL- " ...... 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 8. WNOE- " ...... 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. KNOE-TV ...... 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 lO.KALB-Radio ...... 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ll.WXOK- " ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.DON'T KNOW ...... 11.4 9.2 5.7 7.8 8.5 7.9 Class Call-Letters of Stations Student I II III IV V ( 51) ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. WBRZ-TV ...... 70.6% 88.2% 84.2% 88.6% 87.8% 88.5% 2. WDSU-TV ...... 11.8 7.8 7.4 4.3 2.4 2.9 3. WAFB-TV ...... 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.3 1.8 1.9 4. WJBO-Radio ...... 4.0 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.0 5. WDSU- " ...... 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. WLCS- " ...... 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 7. WWL- " ...... 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 8. WNOE- " ...... 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 9. K N O E - T V ...... 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 lO.KALB-Radio ...... 2.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 ll.WXOK- " ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 12.DON'T KNOW ...... 7.8 7.8 7.4 9.2 9.7 7.7 80
An equally large number of respondents were able to identify the person actually delivering the editorials as Mr. Douglas Manship. More whites than non-whites did so, but in all cases the number was high. These
figures are summarized in Table 14*.
TABLE 14*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS KNOWING OF EDITORIALS WHO IDENTIFIED VARIOUS PERSONS AS THE MAN WHO DELIVERED THE EDITORIALS
Sex-Race Name of Individual All W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female Identified (828) (369) (384) ( 79) ( 56)______1. Douglas Manship . . . 78.9% 81.6% 79.0% 74.7% 66.1% 2. John Monroe ..... 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.0 1.8 3. Charles Manship . . . 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 4. James N o e 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 5. Larry S h a r p 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Jack C o n n o r 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. Bud C o n n e l l 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. DON'T KNOW...... 19.1 15.4 19.4 26.3 32.1______Age Name of Individual 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Identified (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 1. Douglas Manship . . . 57.0% 78.1% 86.5% 86.9% 89.4% 78.6% 2. John Monroe 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3. Charles Manship . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 4. James N o e 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Larry Sharp ..... 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Jack C o n n e r 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. Bud C o n n e l l 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. DON'T KNOW 35.4 21.9 13.5 12.3 10.6 18.2 Class Name of Individual Student I II III IV V Identified______( 51) ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. Douglas Manship . . .56.9% 82.3% 83.3% 88.0% 80.0% 63.5% 2. John M o n r o e 4.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 0.3 1.0 3. Charles Manship . . . 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 4. James Noe ...... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 5. Larry Sharp ..... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Jack Connor ..... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. Bud Connell 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. DON'T KNOW 33.3 15.7 13.0 10.3 19.7 33.6 81
Discussion of the Editorials
All of Che above indicates that most of those who had heard of \ the editorials had heard at least one, were aware of the station over which
they were broadcast, and could identify the person editorializing. This
is a bare minimum of information to retain, but before probing the question
of retention further the survey turned aside briefly to examine the ques
tion of how much discussion the editorials stimulated. Respondents were
asked:
How did you first hear of these editorials?
and:
Did you talk with anyone about them?
As can be seen in Table 15*, few respondents learned about these
editorials through conversation with others. No matter how the sample is
grouped, a large majority first heard of the editorials while watching
television and waiting for another program.
If one can assume that a measure of the impact of these editor
ials is the amount of conversation they stimulated, Table 16* would in
dicate a fair degree of success. Over half the respondents talked about
them within their own family and approximately one-third talked to close
and/or casual friends.
There seemed to be a greater tendency for men to talk about these
than for women. Also, non-whites apparently discussed them more than did
whites. Looking at the various age groups one sees that these editorials
stimulated more conversation among respondents between the ages of 26 and
40 than in any other groups. For some reason, the least talking was done
by the youngest (19 to 25) and oldest (over 55). 82
TABLE 15*
SOURCES FROM WHICH RESPONDENTS LEARNED OF EDITORIALS
Sex-Race Source of All W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female Information (828) (369) (324) ( 79) ( 56)
1. Saw them on television waiting for other shows ...... 84.0% 83.3% 83.6% 92.3% 78.5% 2. Read of them in paper 3.6 2.5 3.7 0.0 8.9 3. Told of them by friends ...... 3.3 2.7 4.3 0.0 5.3 4. Prior television announce ...... 2.2 3.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 5. Heard of them on radio 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.8 6. Told by fellow workers 0.8 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 7. DON'T KNOW...... 4.5 6.8 5.2 7.5 5.3
Age Source of 19-25 27-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Information (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126)
1. Saw them on television waiting for other shows ...... 79.7% 89.9% 90.1% 75.4% 81.9% 85.7% 2. Read of them in paper 1.9 0.8 1.5 8.0 5.3 5.5 3. Told of them by friends ...... 3.2 4.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.2 4. Prior television announce ...... 3.2 0.8 0.5 4.3 3.2 1.6 5. Heard of them on radio 1.9 1.7 0.5 4.3 0.0 0.8 6. Told by fellow workers 3.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. DON'T KNOW...... 5.7 0.8 2.6 3.6 5.3 2.4
Class Source of Student I II III IV V Information < 51) ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. Saw them on television waiting for other shows ...... 82.4% 86.3% 83.3% 84.2% 83.0% 87.5% 2. Read of them in paper 0.0 3.9 1.8 3.3 4.8 3.8 3. Told of them by friends 3.9 3.9 1.8 2.2 3.6 4.8 4. Prior television announce ...... 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.6 3.0 1.9 5. Heard of them on radio 5.9 0.0 2.8 2.7 0.6 0.0 6. Told by fellow workers 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 0.6 0.0 7. DON'T KNOW...... 3.9 3.9 3.7 4.3 3.0 1.9 83
TABLE 16*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS KNOWING OF EDITORIALS WHO TALKED WITH OTHERS ABOUT THE MATERIAL THEY HEARD
Sex-Race Number and Type of All W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female People Contacted______(828) (369) (324) ( 791 ( 56) 1. Immediate family only 36.4% 36.3% 37.0% 36.7% 33.9% 2. Family & other relatives ...... 17.5 15.2 16.7 30.4 19.6 TOTAL FAMILY. . . . 53.9 51.5 53.7 67.1 53.5
3. One or two close friends ...... 8.8 10.6 8.6 5.1 3.6 4. Three to five close friends ...... 13.6 13.8 12.6 20.2 8.9 5. Over five close friends ...... 14.1 16.2 11.7 12.6 16.1 TOTAL CLOSE FRIENDS 36.5 40.6 32.9 37.9 28.6
6. One or two casual friends ...... 6.1 8.4 4.9 0.0 7.1 7. Three to five casual friends ...... 11.2 11.1 9.5 17.7 12.5 8. Over five casual f r i e n d s ...... 13.6 14.9 7.4 37.9 7.1 TOTAL CASUAL FRIENDS ...... 30.9 34.4 21.8 55.6 26.7
9. One or two strangers. 1.3 1.6 0.6 2.5 1.8 10.Three to five strangers ...... 1.2 0.8 0.9 6.3 0.0 11.Over five strangers . 3.3 4.6 1.8 6.3 1.8 TOTAL STRANGERS . . 5.8 7.0 3.3 15.1 3.6
Age Number and Type of 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up People Contacted (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 1. Immediate family only 34.8% 44.5% 36.7% 29.7% 44.0% 31.7% 2. Family & other relatives ...... 10.7 16.8 23.8 23.9 14.8 11.9 TOTAL FAMILY. . . . 45.5 61.3 60.5 53.6 48.8 43.6 3. One or two close friends ...... 7.5 14.2 9.8 9.4 8.5 3.2 4. Three to five close friends ...... 13.3 17.6 15.5 13.7 11.7 8.7 5. Over five close friends ...... 11.4 11.7 16.5 16.6 11.7 15.1 TOTAL CLOSE FRIENDS 32.2 43.5 41.8 39.7 31.9 27.0 84
TABLE 16*— Continued
Age Number and Type of 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up People Contacted (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 6. One or two casual friends 9.5 8.4 3.6 5.0 3.2 7.1 7. Three to five casual friends ...... 6.3 22.6 12.4 8.6 11.7 7.1 8. Over five casual friends ...... 12.6 13.4 19.1 14.4 8.5 9.5 TOTAL CASUAL FRIENDS ...... 28.4 44.4 35.1 28.0 23.4 23.7
9. One or two strangers. 1.8 3.3 0.0 1.4 2.1 0.7 10.Three to five strangers ...... 0.6 0.0 2.1 0.7 4.2 0.0 11.Over five strangers . 5.6 2.5 4.1 3.6 2.1 0.7 TOTAL STRANGERS . . 8.0 5.8 6.2 5.7 8.4 1.4
Class Number and Type of Student I II III IVV People Contacted ( 51). ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. Immediate family only 27.4% 33.3% 28.7% 39.1% 38.7% 38.4% 2. Family & other relatives ...... 7.8 23.5 16.6 17.9 14.8 27.8 TOTAL FAMILY. . . . 35.2 56.8 45.3 57.0 53.5 66.2
3. One or two close friends ...... 9.8 21.5 8.3 6.5 9.3 4.8 4. Three to five close friends ...... 7.8 13.7 12.9 14.7 13.3 16.3 5. Over five close friends ...... 13.7 27.4 15.7 18.4 10.3 10.5 TOTAL CLOSE FRIENDS 31.3 62.6 36.9 39.6 32.9 31.6
6. One or two casual friends ...... 9.8 1.9 4.6 4.8 8.4 2.8 7. Three to five casual friends ...... 7.8 9.8 15.7 11.4 9.3 14.4 8. Over five casual friends ...... 13.7 13.7 12.9 13.5 12.4 18.2 TOTAL CASUAL FRIENDS ...... 31.3 25.4 33.2 29.7 30.1 35.4 9. One or two strangers. 1.9 0.0 1.8 2.1 1.5 0.0 10.Three to five strangers ...... 1.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.8 1.9 11. Over five strangers. 5.8 1.9 5.5 3.8 3.3 0.0 TOTAL STRANGERS. . 9.6 1.9 8.2 5.9 6.6 1.9 85
Generally it can be said that the editorials in question stimu
lated a fair amount of discussion in this community. Such discussion would indicate that the editorials stirred people to thought and may have
entered into the decision-making process for some. They seem to have
done little to increase penetration, however. Very few people first
heard of an editorial in a discussion with a friend or fellow worker.
Retention of Specific Information
The method used to classify the editorials in terms of issues
has already been discussed.8 To probe retention of these issues, re
spondents were asked:
What did the man talk about in the editorials you heard?
and:
Do you agree with this point of view?
When the interviewer was satisfied the respondent could think of
no more, he handed the subject a card on which were printed the thirteen
issues and asked:
Recently Mr. Douglas Manship, the owner of WBRZ - Channel 2, has editorialized on the following issues. Do you remember hearing him speak about any of these issues on the air?
It was hoped that comparison of aided and unaided recall would
give some indication of the editorials which were most effective. As will
be seen, though, percentages were generally so small that analysis in
such detail was not possible. Only five of the thirteen issues were
identified, with or without aid, by more than 10% of the sample. The
3 Supra.. pp. 49-51. 86 highest percentage of identification was 27;8%. Some of these results
are summarized in Table 17.
TABLE 17
PERCENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS IDENTIFYING VARIOUS ISSUES DISCUSSED
Response3 Didn't 2 3 4 Issues Identify A U A U AU
1. The secrecy about the original call for a special ses sion of the Legis. 82.7% 7.0% 2.0% 4.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
2. The effects of the speeches and actions of the legislators on the people of La. 87.5 5.0 1.5 2.8 0.5 0.3 0.0
3. The amount of in formation given to the representatives from New Orleans about the plans of the Legislature 97.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
4. The number of people who are contacting their representatives about their feelings on segregation 94.2 3.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0
5. The strength of state law compared with the strength of Federal Courts 89.8 3.6 0.9 2.8 0.6 0.4 0.1
6. The proposed 1% sales tax increase 72.2 10.7 5.2 4.2 1.6 0.3 1.4 87
TABLE 17— Continued
Responsea Didn1t 2 3 4 Issues Identify AU A U A U
7. The censure by the Legislature of the University professor who wrote several legislators 92.6 3.6 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.1
8. The proposed in vestigation of profes sors at L.S.U. 92.0 3.1 0.6 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.5
9. The increasing num ber of state Civil Ser vice employees 96.7 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
10. The plans to inter pose the authority of the state between the Federal Government and the people of La. 94.1 2.1 0.3 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
11. The Federal Court order to integrate the schools in E. Baton Rouge Parish 86.9 2.1 3.5 2.9 1.8 0.6 0.4
12. The plans to in crease the size of the Baton Rouge School Board 92.3 3.1 0.7 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.0
13. The proposed law making it a crime to urge parents to send their children to in tegrated schools and giving the fines to informers 95.9 2.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1
aKey to responses: 2 - identified correctly and agreed 3 - identified correctly and disagreed 4 - identified incorrectly A - aided recall U - unaided recall 88
Original plans for the analysis of these issues provided for many subject reactions. Responses were first to be classified as to
whether the position taken by Mr. Manship in each issue was identified
correctly or incorrectly. Each of these groups was to be further divided
according to the reaction of the respondent to the issues he identified
(e.g. agree, disagree, no opinion, don't understand, etc.). Finally, each
group was to be divided again into those whose recall was aided and those
who remembered without prompting. As can be seen in Table 17, the number
of respondents identifying any given issue was so small that such de
tailed analysis was not deemed worthwhile.
Some analysis was made of those respondents identifying each
issue. This information is summarized in Table 18. In the case of each
issue, those being analyzed include all respondents who made any identi
fication of the issue, regardless of reaction to it or whether recall was
aided or unaided. Even here, though, it can be seen that the number of
respondents identifying a specific issue is, in many cases, quite small.
The discussion which follows will include only those issues identified by
more than 10% of all respondents contacted.^
^This figure of 10% is not completely arbitrary, but is estimated from the data in Table 2, p. 46. From this table it can be seen that the sets-in-use figure for Baton Rouge ranged from an estimated 17% (Monday- Friday, November, 1960) to an estimated 24.8% (Saturday, March, 1961). In this same period, the WBRZ share of audience ranged from 35.4% (Sunday, November, 1960) to 76.2% (Sunday, March, 1961). Calculating from these figures it can be seen that the potential Channel Two audience in the time period during which the editorials were broadcast ranged from 6.8% of area television homes (Saturday night, November, 1960 -- 36.5% X 18.9%) to 15.6% (Sunday night, March, 1961 — 76.2% X 20.5%). These figures must be adjusted further in view of the fact, as noted by the American Research Bureau, that only 82.5% of the homes in Baton Rouge have television sets. When this is done the percentage of area homes in the potential WBRZ audience over this period is seen to range from 5.6% to 12.8% — the mid- 89
TABLE 18
ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS IDENTIFYING EACH ISSUE
Number Sex-Race Issue Identifying W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female Number (100%) (35.4%)a (41.8%)a (11,2%)a (11.6%)a
1. 247 48.2% 41.3% 8.1% 2.4% 2. 178 50.6 35.4 11.2 2.8 3. 44 59.1 31.8 4.5 4.5 4. 84 36.9 42.8 11.9 8.3 5. 145 43.4 35.2 15.2 6.2 6 . 395 45.1 35.4 15.2 4.3 7. 106 56.6 34.0 7.5 1.9 8. 114 44.7 31.6 22.8 0.9 9. 48 47.9 45.8 4.2 2.1 10. 85 49.4 41.2 4.7 4.7 11. 186 39.2 40.9 13.4 6.4 12. 111 53.1 39.6 5.4 1.8 13. 60 40.0 46.7 10.0 3.3
Number Age Issue Identifying 19-25 27-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Number (100%) (17.5%)a (14.4%)a (22.l%)a (14.8%)a (13.1%)a (18.1%)a
1. 247 9.7% 15.4% 24.7% 15.8% 17.4% 17.0% 2. 178 14.6 15.7 30.3 13.5 9.0 16.8 3. 44 9.1 20.4 22.7 22.7 15.9 9.1 4. 84 21.4 22.6 25.0 14.3 8.3 8.3 5. 145 15.2 19.3 19.3 13.1 14.5 18.6 6 . 395 15.4 16.7 25.6 17.2 13.2 11.9 7. 106 12.3 17.0 27.3 17.0 14.1 12.3 8. 114 14.0 21.9 23.7 21.9 9.6 7.9 9. 48 12.5 18.7 33.3 12.5 16.6 6.2 10. 85 15.3 15.3 28.2 20.0 12.9 8.2 11. 186 15.6 15.6 33.9 10.2 12.9 11.8 12. 111 17.1 16.2 19.8 11.7 18.0 17.1 13. 60 10.0 10.0 28.3 21.7 18.3 11.7 90
TABLE 18— Continued
Number Class Issue Identifying Stdnt I II III IV V Number (100%) ( 4.7%)a (4.4%)a (10.1%) a (18.5%)a (40.2%)a (22.1%)a
1. 247 1.2% 6.5% 16.2% 26.7% 39.7% 9.7% 2. 178 3.9 9.5 12.3 20.8 41.6 11.8 3. 44 4.5 2.3 15.9 36.4 34.1 6.8 4. 84 7.1 10.7 9.5 23.8 29.8 19.0 5. 145 4.1 10.3 14.5 20.0 35.9 15.2 6 . 395 5.6 7.5 13.2 22.3 37.5 13.9 7. 106 1.9 15.1 17.9 18.9 39.6 6.6 8. 114 5.3 7.0 16.7 21.1 43.0 7.0 9. 48 4.2 12.5 12.5 22.9 37.5 10.4 10. 85 9.4 15.3 15.3 29.4 27.1 3.5 11. 186 4.8 7.5 8.6 20.4 40.9 17.7 12. 111 7.2 13.5 16.2 22.5 28.8 11.7 13. 60 3.3 15.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 11.7
aFigures in parentheses represent the proportion of the total sample represented by each group.
A similar procedure was followed in the analysis of those re
spondents identifying each of these issues. First, the sex-race, age,
and class distribution was determined for each group of respondents, (e.g.
all those identifying issue number one, issue number two, etc.). These
distributions were then compared with the distributions found in the en-
point of this range being 9.2%. In view of the fact that exposure in a home probably represents viewing by more than one adult, identification of an issue by 10% of the sample was thought to represent a reasonable cut-off point for detailed analysis. As will be seen in the following discussion, rating figures indicate a potential audience for specific editorials which is often higher than this 10% figure. It was chosen in this context only as a guide. 91 tire sample to determine the probability of such sub-samples occurring by chance. The Chi-square test of significance was used to make this deter mination. 5
Each of the issues considered in this way will be discussed below.
Issue 6 - The proposed 1% sales tax increase
The question of an increase in taxes was considered in four edito rials, numbers six and nine on December 12 and 21, and numbers ten and eleven on January 5 and 7.® The issue was identified by the greatest num ber of respondents, 395 or 27.8% of the entire sample.
When the distribution of respondents making this identification is compared with the distribution of the entire sample, several interest ing differences can be seen.^ Although white males make up on 35.4% of the sample, 45.1% of those identifying issue number six are white men.
'’Thisis computed from the formula: Chi Square = £ -fat' T n £ where n^= the observed number, n'i = the expected number, and k = the number of categories. For observed numbers, the raw numbers of those in each category identifying a specific issue (e.g. the number of white men iden tifying issue number one) were used. Expected numbers were computed from the distributions found in the total sample. For example, 119 white men identified issue number one. The figure 119 then becomes the observed number. Of the total sample, 35.4% were white males. The expected num ber becomes 35.4% of 247 (the total number identifying issue number one) or 89. Using the Chi-square test in this way one is able to test the null- hypotheses that the distribution of the sub-group identifying an issue differs from the distribution of the total sample only because of chance factors. The formula was drawn from: Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Met hods for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: RiMhart & Company, Inc., 1955), p. 367.
®See Appendix A for the complete text of each editorial.
7 A Chi-square test of this difference indicates that for all three distributions (sex-race, age, and class) the differences are sig nificant above the .02 level of confidence. 92
Conversely, 41.8% of the sample are white females and 11.6% are non-white females. These two groups make up only 35.4% and 4.3%, respectively, of the group identifying issue number six. Thus it could be said that there is a heavier concentration of white men and a lighter concentration of women than one would expect.
Similar examinations of age and class groupings reveal lower than normal concentrations among the oldest respondents and those in class V.
These editorials, then, seem to have had the greatest impact on white men.
Women, older respondents, and those in the lowest classes seem to have been least aware of the discussion of this issue.
Examination of the information included in Table 1 provides some insight into the significance of the fact that 27.8% of the sample re called the issue. As noted, this editorial was developed in four edito rials, numbers six, nine, ten, and eleven. From Table 1 we see that the estimated ratings for the programs leading into the editorial range from a high of thirty-four, for number six, to a low of thirteen, for number eleven. The estimated ratings for the programs immediately following range from seventeen, for number six, to twelve, for number eleven. As a conservative hypothesis it will be assumed that the lower figures repre
sent the most accurate estimate of the audience for each editorial. These
figures, of course, represent "the percentage of television homes reached during the . . . period."® They must be reduced by 17.5% to allow for the
fact that only 82.5% of the homes in Baton Rouge have television sets.
When this is done, the potential number of homes reached by each editorial
O The Baton Rouge Television Audience (Washington: The American Research Bureau, November, 1960), p. 29. 93 becomes (1) number six, 14%; (2) number nine, 11.5%; (3) number ten, 11.5%; and (4) number eleven, 10%.
Respondents were questioned about issues, not editorials. Con sequently, viewing and retention of one editorial could produce a posi tive response to the issue and the upper range of potential penetration would be the sum of the above four percentages, or 47% — the assumption here being that a completely different audience viewed each. The lower limit of this range would be 14% -- with the assumption that the audience
for editorials number nine, ten, and eleven was drawn entirely from the audience for number six.
The mid-point of this range is 30.5% of the homes in this area or
14,701 of the 48,200 homes. According to the World Almanac for 1961, the q average number of persons over fourteen in each home is 3.35. The figure
for homes reached thus represents 49,248 persons, or 32.6% of the Baton
Rouge population of 151,000.10
The percentage of respondents who identified the issue is some
what below a conservative, and extremely tentative, estimate of the
number of persons who could have been exposed to one mention of this issue.
At best, it can be seen as an indication that 85% of those who saw an
editorial on the subject were able to recall the subject after a period
of over two months. At the least, it would seem that the discussion of
this issue did have a relatively high impact on those who heard it — in
whole or in part.
ftrhe World Almanac and Book of Facts (New York: New York World Telegram and the Sun, 1961), p. 462.
^Population figures for Baton Rouge are drawn from, Baton Rouee: Its Dynamic Economy (Baton Rouge: The Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce,1959). 94
Issue 1 - The secrecy about the original call for a special session of the Louisiana State Legislature
This issue was discussed in the first two editorials considered by the survey. Although these were delivered on November 6 and 10 -- four months prior to the survey itself — the issue was identified by the second highest number of respondents, 247 or 17.3%.
Examining the sex-race, age, and class distributions of these respondents one finds higher than normal concentration among white men and classes II and III. Lower than normal concentrations can be seen among non-white women, the youngest respondents, and those in class V . ^
An analysis of the rating figures similar to that described for issue number six provides a conservative estimate of 28,270 persons, or
18.7% of the population exposed to at least one of the two editorials touching on this issue. The identification level of 17.3% seems to point to the conclusion that this issue also had considerable impact upon those who heard it.
Issue 11 - The Federal Court order to integrate the schools in East Baton Rouge Parish
Mr. Manship discussed this issue both before and after the court order. The first editorial was number fourteen delivered on February 3 and the second was number fifteen on February 10. The issue was identi fied by 185 respondents, 13.1%.
The distribution differences observed in the sex-race and class
**Chi-square analysis of each of these three distributions (sex- race, age, and class) indicates that each is significant at the .005 level of confidence. 95 distributions were slight and were not found to be significant. Among age groups there is a higher than normal concentration in the 33-40 groups and a lower than normal concentration among those over 55.^
It was found probable that 37% of the population of Baton Rouge were exposed to at least one of these two editorials. Thus less than half of the respondents in the potential audience were able to recall discussion of this issue.
It is interesting to note that, of the five issues considered here, this is the only one in which a higher percentage of white respon dents disagreed than agreed with the stand taken by Mr. Manship.
Issue 2 - The effect of the speeches and actions of the legislators on the people of Louisiana
This issue was developed in three editorials, number four on
November 14, number five on December 9, and number ten on January 5. It was identified by 12.5% of the sample, or 178 respondents.
In this case, the age distribution proved not significantly dif ferent from that of the total sample. A higher than normal percentage of white men identified the issue as did a lower than normal percentage of women — white and non-white. Among the class groups, class V again revealed a lower than normal percentage.^
12 ^Chi-square analysis of the difference between the age distri bution of this group and that found in the entire sample indicates that the difference is significant at the .01 level of confidence. 1 1 AJChi-square analysis indicates that for both distributions (sex-race and class), the difference is significant at the .005 level of confidence. 96
A potential audience of 54,000, or 35*8%, was calculated for issue number two. This indicates that only one-third of this group was able to recall any discussion of this issue.
Issue 5 - The strength of state law compared with the strength of the decisions of Federal Courts
Five editorials were devoted to this issue — in whole or in part.
These were numbers two and three on November 10 and 13, number five on
December 9, number ten on January 5, and number twelve on January 13. No other issue was touched upon so often in this series of editorials, but it was recalled by only 10.2% of the respondents interviewed.
Here again, age distribution was not significantly different from
that of the sample. Familiar differences were found in the sex-race and
class distributions. A higher than normal percentage of white men iden
tified the issue as did a lower than normal percentage of white and non white women. Among class groups, a higher than normal percentage of class
I and a lower than normal percentage of class V made the identification.^
Because this issue was touched upon in so many editorials, it was
estimated that the potential audience was quite large — the actual fig
ures being 77,050 persons or 51% of the population of Baton Rouge. The
editorials relating to this issue, then, would seem to have had the least
impact on those who heard them.
Conclusions
Some general conclusions may be drawn from the analysis of these
^Chi-square analysis indicates that the difference between the class distribution of this group and that of the entire sample was signi ficant at the .01 level of confidence. The sex-race difference is signi ficant at the .05 level. issues. In every case save one, the percentage of white men among those identifying an issue was significantly higher than the percentage of men in the total sample. Conversely, the percentage of non-white females in the groups identifying an issue was consistently lower than the percent of this class in the sample. It would seem reasonable to conclude that these editorials had a greater impact upon white men than non-white women.
A similar trend is noted in the class distributions. For each issue the percentage of identifying respondents in class V was less than the proportion of this class to the sample. These editorials seem to have had little impact on this "lowest" class.
The factor of elapsed time between an editorial and the time a respondent was contacted seems to have had little effect on recall. The issue identified by the largest number of respondents was developed al most three months prior to the beginning of the survey. Two editorials delivered in early November were recalled by the second largest number of respondents. On the other hand, an issue discussed less than a week prior to the survey was identified by only 4% of the respondents.
When these editorials and issues are considered in relation to
the total population of Baton Rouge it appears that they had little im pact in this community. With the exception of a "bread and butter" issue
like an increase in taxes, comment on problems vital to the south and to
the nation seem to have been little noticed.
When retention data is considered in relation to an estimated potential audience for the discussion of an issue, several editorials
appear to have had considerable impact upon those who heard them --at
least when impact is measured in terms of retention. The figures for 98 issues number one and six have already been discussed. For issue number eleven, concerning the order to integrate schools in Baton Rouge, approx imately half of the potential audience identified the issue.
Among those issues with an overall low level of retention, the two editorials dealing with the censure and investigation of Dr. Waldo
McNeir were recalled by numbers of respondents closely approaching the estimated potential audience. This potential audience was low because only one editorial was devoted to the discussion of each issue. The fig ures for potential audience and recall of each issue are summarized in
Table 19 below.
TABLE 19
AUDIENCE AND RECALL FIGURES FOR THIRTEEN ISSUES
Issue Number of Potential Percent Number Editorials Audience Recalling
1. 2 18.7% 17.3% 2. 3 35.8 12.5 3. 1 12.5 3.0 4. 2 21.6 5.8 5. 5 51.0 10.2 6. 4 32.6 27.8 7. 1 10.7 7.4 8. 1 10.7 8.0 9. 2 17.7 3.3 10. 1 16.0 4.9 11. 2 37.0 13.1 12. 2 14.5 7.7 13. 1 10.7 4.1
Four of the thirteen issues discussed were recalled 1»y a high per
centage of the estimated audience exposed to at least one presentation of
the issue. Two of these, numbers seven and eight, were related to L.S.U., 99 always an object of interest to the community. The third dealt with a possible increase in taxes - - a subject of immediate concern to most cit izens. The relatively high level of retention noted for issue number one, however, is somewhat surprising. Why recall of this — dealing with the secrecy surrounding the first call for a special session — was higher than that for issues discussed in March and dealing with local schools is difficult to understand.
In summary, although few issues were recalled by any large portion of the sample, it seems apparent that a few of the editorials did contri bute to the decision making processes of a large number of the respondents who heard them. The fact that three of the four issues discussed in these editorials were concerned with local or immediately personal prob lems indicates that this is the type of material most likely to be re called from future presentations. This conclusion, however, is weakened by the recall noted for discussion of issues number eleven and twelve — both dealing with the problem of integration in Baton Rouge schools.
Following this probing of recall and reactions to specific edito rials and issues, the survey turned to the question of reaction to the
series of editorials as a whole. This question is discussed in the fol
lowing chapter. CHAPTER VI
OVERALL REACTION TO THE SERIES OF EDITORIALS
Introduction
This survey first probed Baton Rouge opinions on the general principle of television editorializing. Following this, it investigated the question of retention and understanding of information in a specific series of editorials. The next question posed was: "What is the public reaction to this series of editorials as a whole?" This was included in an attempt to provide some general information which could be used as a guide for future attempts to editorialize in a similar situation. It was thought that the data gathered could also provide further insight into the overall effects of persuasive mass communications — especially if there were any "boomerang effect" on the editorials themselves.
Effectiveness of Individual Editorials
To begin the investigation of this question, respondents were asked:
Did any of the editorials you heard stand out in your mind as being more effective than the rest. If so, will you identify them please?
The data gathered by this question are summarized in Table 20*.
As can be seen in this table, the number choosing any one issue is quite
small. When the issues are ranked in order of frequency of identifica tion it can be seen that the rank-order obtained is almost exactly the
100 101
TABLE 20*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IDENTIFYING EACH ISSUE AS 'MOST EFFECTIVE"
Sex-Race Issue All W/Male W/Female N-W/Male N-W/Female Number (828) (369) (384) ( 79) ( 56) 1. 2.6% 4.3% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2. 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.4 0.2 3. 0.0 ---- 4. 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 5. 1.5 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.4 6. 10.3 11.1 6.8 2.3 0.7 7. 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 8. 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 9. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 10. 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 11. 3.0 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.2 12. 1.5 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 13. 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Age Issue 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Number (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 1. 0.0% 5.0% 3.1% 2.9% 1.1% 4.0% 2. 0.6 0.0 2.6 2.9 2.1 1.6 J • 4. 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. 1.9 0.0 1.0 1.4 6.3 0.0 6. 11.4 13.4 10.9 6.5 15.6 4.8 7. 1.3 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 8. 0.0 4.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 0.8 9. 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 11. 4.4 3.4 2.0 0.0 3.2 5.5 12. 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.4 4.2 0.0 13. 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 Class Issue Stdnt I II III IV V Number (51) ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. 0.0% 3.9% 3.7 % 2.2% 3.6% 0.0% 2. 0.0 7.8 2.8 0.5 0.6 3.8 O •3 • 4. 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 5. 3.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.7 6. 17.6 5.9 12.0 9.2 10.3 8.6 7. 3.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 8. 0.0 3.9 2.8 1.6 0.0 1.9 9. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.0 10. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 11. 2.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 3.6 7.7 102
same as that obtained from the frequency of identification which is
sunanarized in Table 18 in Chapter V.-1
In answering this question, 11% chose the editorials dealing with the proposed increase in sales tax, but no other issue was chosen by more than 3% of the sample. Because of these small numbers, no attempt was made to analyze the various sub-groups in the sample.
Support for the Entire Series
Respondents were next asked:
Do you think these editorials by a station owner should be continued?
Over half of those who had heard of an editorial agreed they
should be continued, while approximately one-third felt they should not.
Greatest support was found among non-whites, but agreement was high
among almost all groups. This information is summarized in Table 21*.
The number willing to answer "Yes" to this question declined
fairly steadily as age of subject increased. The range extends from a
high of 62% of those 19-25 to a low of 49% of those over 55. Except
for class V, which includes the highest percentage of Negroes, a similar
trend can be seen among classes.
Greatest support for the continuation of the series is found
among non-whites, younger, and "upper" class respondents. This, it will
Supra., p. 91. The correlation between these two rank-orders is .98. This is computed from the formula: _ in which xA 6 S D 2______a rd= 1 ‘ N(NZ - 1) is used to indicate the correlation between ranked data, D is the differ ence between ranks, and N is the number of pairs of ranks. Merle W. Tate, Statistics in Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955), p. 244. 103
TABLE 21*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS KNOWING OF EDITORIALS WHO ANSWERED "YES," "NO," OR "DON'T KNOW" TO: "Do you think these editorials by a station owner should be continued?"
Classification Yes No Don't Know
All Respondent s (828) ...... 33.1% 11.7%
Sex-Race White Male (369). . . . 36.8 9.5 White Female (324). . . . 39.5 13.3 Non-White Male (79). . . . 11.4 17.7 Non-White Female ( 56)...... 89.2 2.0 8.9
Age 19-25 (158) ...... 25.3 12.7 26-32 (119) ...... 30.2 11.9 33-40 (193) ...... 50.2 37.3 12.5 41-47 (138) ...... 39.1 4.4 48-55 ( 9 4 ) ...... 35.1 8.6 55&up (126) ...... 49.2 30.9 19.9
Class Students ( 51) ...... 15.7 13.7 I ( 5 1 ) ...... 19.6 9.8 II (108) ...... 26.8 7.5 III (184) ...... 39.7 12.0 IV ( 3 3 0 ) ...... 40.3 11.9 V (104) ...... 64.4 20.1 15.5
be remembered, is the same configuration found among respondents answering
"Yes" to an earlier question:
Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on controversial issues on the air.
An interesting difference between these sets of data should be noted. In the total sample of 1,414, 59% of the white men and 53% of the white women will support the abstract right to editorialize. Among the
Supra.. p. 63. 104
828 respondents who had heard of the local editorials, these percentages
fall to 53% and 47% respectively. On the other hand, corresponding non white percentages in the total sample were as follows: Men, 67% and Women,
66%. In the exposed sub-sample, these percentages rise to 71% and 89%
respectively. Although the shift is not great, among white respondents
it would seem that greatest support for the right to editorialize came
from those who had not heard of the local editorials. Just the opposite
was true of non-whites — greatest support was found among those who had
heard of them.
All respondents answering "Yes" or "No" to this question were
next invited to give reasons for their response. There are summarized in
Tables 22* and 23*.
Among those answering "Yes," the most common response was: "They
provide another source of information." This was also the first choice
of every sub-group in the sample save one. Class I chose the second most
common response: "It is his right as owner of the station." Aside from
these responses, support is well spread over twelve different opinions.
Except for occasional concentrations of support in an age or class group,
the factors of sex, race, age, and class seem to have had little influ-
Q ence on the reasons advanced.
When these responses are compared with those advanced to support
the abstract right to editorialize, a definite shift in emphasis can be
'’Classes I and II, as well as respondents between 41 and 48, seemed most concerned with the presentation of "both sides" and qualified their approval with: "So long as both sides are presented." A high per centage of students would continue these because "he apparently feels they can do some good." Respondents over 49 were most willing to say that "Mr. Manship is 'O.K.1 — generally fair and clear." 105
TABLE 22*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS GIVING VARIOUS REASONS FOR THINKING EDITORIALS SHOULD BE CONTINUED
Sex-Race Non Non All W/M W/F W/M W/F Reason Given______(457)a (198)a (153)a ( 56 )a ( 50)a 1. Provide another source of in- formation . . . 28.4% 24.2% 32.7% 39.2% 20.0% 2. It is his right as owner of station .... 14.4 16.7 17.6 3.5 8.0 3. They stimulate people to thought . . . . 7.6 10.6 5.2 7.1 2.0 4. So long as both sides are pre sented...... 5.5 8.6 3.9 0.0 4.0 5. Mr.Manship is generally fair & c l e a r ...... 5.0 6.5 4.6 0.0 6.0 6. Everyone has the right to speak his mind. . . . 4.8 6.0 2.6 3.5 8.0 7. They are inter esting. . . . . 3.9 3.5 3.9 7.1 2.0 8. Make public aware of another point of view . . . . 3.7 5.0 2.6 0.0 6.0 9. If Mr.Manship feels they do some good 3.1 4.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 10.Someone should be doing it. . . . 2.4 1.5 2.0 7.1 2.0 11.Enjoy hearing what others have to say ...... 2.2 1.0 4.6 0.0 2.0 12.They may sway peo ple to the "right" view...... 2.0 1.0 1.3 3.5 6.0 13.He has same rights as newspaper owner2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 14.They clarify and educate . . . . 2.0 0.5 3.3 0.0 6.0 15.DON'T KNOW & OTHER 13.3 15.5 10.0 29.0 28.0 106
TABLE 22*--Continued
Age 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up A U a Reason Given (457) ( 98) ( 69) ( 97) ( 78)a (53 )a ( 62 )a 1. Provide another source of in formation . . . 28.4% 25.5% 21.7% 26.8% 24.4% 30.2% 46.8% 2. It is his right as owner of station .... 14.4 12.2 15.9 15.5 20.5 3.8 16.1 3. They stimulate people to thought . . . . 7.6 10.2 15.9 7.2 3.8 0.0 3.2 4. So long as both sides are pre sented...... 5.5 6.1 2.9 5.2 14.1 1.9 0.0 5. Mr.Manship is generally fair & c l e a r ...... 5.0 1.0 5.8 2.1 1.3 15.1 11.3 6. Everyone has the right to speak his mind. ... 4.8 6.1 7.2 7.2 0.0 3.8 3.2 7. They are inter esting. . . . . 3.9 3.0 1.4 1.0 6.4 9.4 4.8 8. Make public aware of another point of view . . . . 3.7 7-1 4.3 3.1 3.8 0.0 1.6 9. If Mr.Manship feels they do some good 3 .1. 5.1 4.3 2.1 3.8 0.0 1.6 10.Someone should be doing it. . . . 2.4 2.0 7.2 2.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 11.Enjoy hearing what others have to say ...... 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.1 1.9 0.0 12.They may sway peo ple to the ’’right" view...... 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.9 3.2 13.He has same rights as newspaper owner2.0 2.0 1.4 2.1 2.6 0.0 3.2 14.They clarify and educate . . . . 2.0 3.0 2.9 2.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 15.DON'T KNOW & OTHER ...... 13.3 16.3 8.7 12.4 11.5 28.3 4.8 107
TABLE 22*— Continued
Class Stdnt I II III IV V A U a Reason Given (457) ( 36 )a (36)a ( 71)a ( 89)a (158)a ( 67)a 1. Provide another source of in formation . . . 28.4% 22.2% 13.9% 31.0% 23.0% 31.6% 35.8% 2. It is his right as owner of station .... 14.4 19.4 30.6 11.3 13.5 13.9 9.0 3. They stimulate people to thought . . . . 7.6 11.1 5.5 12.7 11.2 5.1 1.5 4. So long as both sides are pre sented. . . . . 5.5 8.3 13.9 0.0 9.0 5.7 0.0 5. Mr.Manship is generally fair & clear . . . . . 5.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 4.5 5.1 6.0 6. Everyone has the right to speak his mind. . . . 4.8 8.3 0.0 2.8 5.6 6.3 3.0 7. They are inter esting...... 3.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 4.5 3.2 7.5 8. Make public aware of another point of view . . . . 3.7 5.5 8.3 1.4 3.4 4.4 1.5 9. If Mr.Manship feels they do some good 3.1 11.1 5.5 0.0 2.2 3.8 0.0 10.Someone should be doing it. . . . 2.4 5.5 2.8 2.8 1.1 1.3 4.5 11.Enjoy hearing what others have to s a y ...... 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.4 2.5 1-5 12.They may sway peo ple to the "right" view...... 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 1.1 0.6 4.5 13.He has same rights as newspaper owner2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.5 1.9 1.5 14.They clarify and educate . . . . 2.0 0.0 2.8 4.2 2.2 1.3 1.5 15.DON'T KNOW & OTHER ...... 13.3 8.3 13.9 11.3 10.1 13.3 22.4 aN - the number in each group answering "Yes" to: "Do you think these editorials by a station owner should be continued?" 108
TABLE 23*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS GIVING VARIOUS REASONS FOR THINKING EDITORIALS SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED
Sex-Race Non Non All W/M W/F W/M W/F Reason Given (274)a (136)a (128)a ( 9)a ( l)a 1. Shouldn't use special position for personal opinion .... 22.7% 19.1% 28.9% 22.2% 0.0% 2. Respondent disagrees with positions t a k e n ...... 8.3 8.1 9.4 0.0 0.0 3. Equal time not pro vided for opposi tion...... 7.6 6.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 4. Speaker is biased 6.6 8.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 5. Station should serve public & not advocate. . . . 5.8 6.6 5.5 0.0 0.0 6. Mr.Manship doesn't know what he is talking about . 4.7 6.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 7. People will become, or are, tired of them...... 4.7 4.4 3.9 22.2 0.0 8. Editorials inter rupt "good" shows 4.3 5.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 9. Station will loose listeners ... 4.0 5.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 10.They cause dissen sion & stir up trouble . . . . 3.2 1.5 3.9 22.2 0.0 11.Subject was "not interested" . . 2.5 1.5 3.1 0.0 100.0 12.The "public" is not able to r e p l y ...... 2.1 2.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 13.TV has too much power 6c influence 2.1 1.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 14.People should make up their own m i n d s ...... 1.8 0.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 15.No opinion. . . . 1.8 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 16.DON'T KNOW 6c OTHER ...... 16.6 17.7 13.3 33.3 0.0 109
TABLE 23*--Continued
Age All 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 556cup Reason Given (274)a ( 40) ( 36)a ( 72)a ( 54) ( 33 )a ( 39)a 1. Shouldn't use special position for personal opinion .... 22.7% 17.5% 19.4% 31.9% 27.8% 21.2% 10.2% 2. Respondent disagrees with position t a k e n ...... 8.3 7.5 5.5 4.2 7.4 12.1 17.9 3. Equal time not pro vided for opposi tion...... 7.6 7.5 19.4 4.2 5.6 6.1 7.7 4. Speaker is biased 6.6 10.1 8.3 4.2 9.2 3.0 5.1 5. Station should serve public & not advocate. . . . 5.8 7.5 0.0 4.2 5.6 12.1 7.7 6. Mr.Manship doesn't know what he is talking about . 4.7 2.5 11.1 5.6 7.2 0.0 5.1 7. People will become, or are, tired of them...... 4.7 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.4 12.1 5.1 8. Editorials inter rupt "good" shows 4.3 19.0 8.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 9. Station will loose listeners ... 4.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 3.7 9.1 0.0 10.They cause dissen sion & stir up trouble . . . . 3.2 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.4 6.1 0.0 11.Subject was "not interested" . . 2.5 0.0 11.1 1.4 1.8 3.0 0.0 12.The "public" is not able to r e p l y ...... 2.1 2.5 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.TV has too much power & influence 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 14.People should make up their own minds . .... 1.8 5.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 15.No opinion. . . 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 16.DON'T KNOW 6c OTHER ..... 16.6 19.0 11.1 12.5 14.8 15.2 30.8 110
TABLE 23*— Continued
Class All Stdnt I II III IV V Reason Given (274)a ( 8)a ( 10)a ( 29)a ( 73 )a (133)a ( 21)a _ 1. Shouldn't use special position for personal opinion .... 22.7% 12.5% 10.0% 31.0% 26.0% 22.6% 14.3% 2. Respondent disagrees with position t a k e n ...... 8.3 25.0 10.0 0.0 8.2 7.5 19.0 3. Equal time not pro vided for opposi tion...... 7.6 0.0 0.0 6.9 15.1 6.0 0.0 4. Speaker is biased 6.6 0.0 10.0 10.3 4.1 8.3 0.0 5. Station should serve public & not advocate. . . . 5.8 0.0 20.0 0.0 5-5 6.8 4.8 6. Mr.Manship doesn't know what he is talking about . 4.7 12.5 20.0 0.0 4.1 4.5 4.8 7. People will become, or are, tired of them...... 4.7 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.1 5.3 9.5 8. Editorials inter rupt "good" shows 4.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 9.6 2.2 4.8 9. Station will loose listeners . . . 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 4.5 4.8 10.They cuase dissen sion & stir up trouble . . . . 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.5 9.5 11.Subject was "not interested" . . 2.5 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 12.The "public" is not able to r e p l y ...... 2.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 13.TV has too much power & influence 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 9.5 14.People should make up their own minds . . . . . 1.8 25.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.0 15.No opinion. . . 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 16.DON'T KNOW & OTHER ...... 16.6 25.0 10.0 37.9 9.6 15.8 19.0 aN - the number in each group answering "No" to: "Do you think these editorials by a station owner should be continued?" Ill
seen. In answering the earlier question respondents seemed to feel that a station owner had the right to editorialize because of some rights in herent in his position. Few spoke of any benefits to be derived from the editorials themselves.^
When asked whether the local editorials should be continued, many
of those who had heard of them spoke of their importance as a source of
information. Others praised their ability to stimulate people to thought,
pointed out that Mr. Manship is fair and clear, and simply called them
interesting. Apparently, many of those who have actually heard an edito
rial, and have been prompted to think about it, find that the form has
some specific values to recommend it.
"He shouldn't use his special position for personal opinion" was
the response most popular among those who felt the editorials should not
be continued. Simple disagreement with Mr. Manship was enough to cause
the second largest number to wish to keep them off the air. Aside from
these two, response is well scattered across fourteen different possibi
lities -- all summarized in Table 23*. Sex, race, and class seem to have
had little effect on these responses either. Some clustering is noted
among age groups.5
When advancing reasons for denying a station owner the right to
editorialize, respondents in the entire sample indicated a fear of the
possible misuse of the power inherent in television broadcasting. This
^Sunra.. pp. 66-67.
^Younger respondents were most prone to support: "They [the edito rials] will loose listeners for the station." Those over 55 gave greater support to: "A station should serve the public interest and not advocate." 112
fear also seems strong among those who would not allow Mr. Manship to con
tinue. Somewhat more practical objections are noted (e.g. disagreement with the position assumed, loss of station business, Interruption of "good"
shows, dislike of "bias," etc.), but many of these seem to stem from an underlying fear of misused power.
Suggested Improvements and Restrictions
Respondents were next given the opportunity to suggest any im
provements they might feel were appropriate. They were asked:
Assuming these editorials are to continue, do you have any suggestions as to how these editorials could be made more effective?
Suggestions made by more than 1% of the respondents are included in Table
24*.
Most respondents had no suggestions to make. This can be seen
as some evidence of satisfaction, but probably reflects lack of interest
and thought as well.
Younger respondents, students, and those in the "upper" classes
were most willing to make suggestions. These were also the groups most
willing to grant the station owner the right to editorialize and seemed
to feel most consistently that he should provide free time for the op
position. This would seem to indicate that these are the classifications
most interested in the problem of broadcast editorials.
The order of frequency of each suggestion is quite constant across
sub-groups.. The first choice of the entire sample, "Present them in a de
bate or panel format," is the first choice of every group but one,. Stu
dents choose "announce them ahead of time" as their most popular improve
ment. Otherwise there are only slight changes in the order of the im
provements suggested. 113
TABLE 24*
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS GIVING VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE EDITORIALS
Sex-Race Non Non All W/M W/F W/M W/F Suggestion Made (828) (369) (324) ( 70) ( 56) 1. NONE 63.9% 59.9% 65.4% 72.1% 69.6% 2. Present them in a debate or panel format . . 9.5 11.1 9.3 7.6 3.6 3. Announce them ahead of time. . 3.9 4.1 3.1 7.6 3.6 4. Allow for opposi tion immediately after...... 3.0 2.7 2.8 7.6 0.0 5. Have a better speaker deliver t h e m ...... 2.6 4.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 6. Schedule them regularly. . . . 2.2 2.7 1.5 2.5 1.7 7. Provide free time for the opposi tion ...... 2.1 2.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 8. Schedule them earlier in the evening. . . . . 2.1 1.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 9. Make them shorter & better written 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.7 10.Make them clearer 1.2 2.2 0.3 0.0 1.7 11.Provide a more forceful delivery 1.1 1.3 0.6 2.5 0.0 12.Schedule more of them ...... 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 5.3
Age All 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Suggestion Made (828) (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 1. NONE 63.9% 57.5% 56.3% 65.2% 64.4% 63.8% 76.1% 2. Present them in - a debate or panel format . . 9.5 10.1 14.2 9.3 13.7 7.4 1.6 3. Announce them ahead of time. . . . . 3.9 5.0 6.7 3.1 6.5 1.0 0.8 4. Allow for opposi tion immediately after...... 3.0 2.5 3.3 3.1 1.4 4.2 3.9 114
TABLE 24*— Continued
Age All 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Suggestion Made (828) (158) (119) (193) (138) ( 94) (126) 5. Have a better speaker deliver t h e m ...... 2.6 3.1 4.2 4.1 1.4 2.1 0.0 6. Schedule them regularly. . . 2.2 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 7. Provide free time for the opposi tion . . . . . 2.1 0.6 4.2 1.6 2.2 4.2 2.4 8. Schedule them earlier in the evening. . . . 2.1 3.8 1.7 1.6 2.9 2.1 0.8 9. Make them shorter and better writtenl.2 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.4 10.Make them clearer 1.2 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.6 11.Provide for a more forceful delivery 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.1 1.6 12.Schedule more of them . i . . . 1.0 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.8
Class All Stdnt I II III IVV Suggestion Made (828) ( 51) ( 51) (108) (184) (330) (104) 1. NONE 63.9% 47.1% 45.0% 61.1% 64.1% 67.5% 72.1% 2. Present them in a debate or panel format . . 9.5 7.8 15.6 8.3 12.5 7.6 9.6 3. Announce them ahead of time. . 3.9 17.6 3.9 5.5 2.2 2.7 2.8 4. Allow for opposi tion immediately after...... 3.0 9.8 0.0 1.8 2.2 4.2 0.0 5. Have a better speaker deliver t h e m ...... 2.6 3.9 11.7 3.7 2.2 1.8 0.0 6. Schedule them regularly. ... 2.2 7.8 5.9 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 7. Provide free time for the opposi tion ...... 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.3 2.4 0.0 8. Schedule them earlier in the evening. . . . . 2.1 1.9 0.0 3.7 3.3 2.1 0.0 9. Make them shorter & better written 1.2 0.0 1.9 0.9 2.2 0.6 1.9 10.Make them clearer 1.7 1.9 0.0 3.7 1.6 0.3 1.0 11.Provide a more forceful delivery 1.1 0.0 3.9 1.8 1.6 0.0 1.9 12.Schedule Aore of them ...... 1.0 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.3 1.9 115
A change of format which would provide opportunity for immediate reply emerges as the most popular improvement suggested. In the situa tion at hand, State officials refused to enter into any sort of dialogue with Mr. Manship by, with one exception, refusing to accept his offers of equal time for a reply. It would seem, however, that this format would be worthy of consideration in any future planning for a similar series of editorials.
To conclude the survey, all respondents were asked:
Are there any specific subjects which you feel should not be discussed by a station owner who editorializes on the air?
Although this has little direct relation to the problem of reaction to the series as a whole, it was felt the information gathered would be use ful in planning any future series of editorials.
As was the case in the previous question, large numbers, either through satisfaction, confidence, indifference, or ignorance, felt no subject was unsuitable. These percentages, and some of the more common
subjects named, are listed in Table 25.
In this question the factors of age and class seem to have had
little effect. The groups in which the highest proportion felt no subject was unsuitable were non-white men and women, but in all groups the percen
tages expressing this opinion were quite high.
Considering the nature of Mr. Manship's editorials and the cli mate of opinion in the South, it is surprising to note that a small per
centage of respondents feel the subject of integration/segregation is not
suitable for editorials. This is the second choice of almost every group,
but at no time does the proportion of those choosing it rise above 7%. 116
TABLE 25
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS NAMING VARIOUS SUBJECTS AS UNSUITABLE FOR TELEVISION EDITORIALS
Sex-Race Non Non All W/M W/F W/M W/F Subject Named (1414) (502) (592) (158) (164) 1. NONE (No subject is unsuitable). 78.0% 69.5% 78.0% 91.9% 88.4% 2. Religion. . . . 7.7 11.3 8.3 1.3 0.6 3. Integration and/ or segregation. 4.5 5.4 4.7 2.5 3.6 4. The political views of the o w n e r ...... 3.8 4.6 4.9 1.3 0.0 5. No subject should be editorialized on.- ...... 2.0 4.6 0.8 0.0 0.6 6. Another indivi dual ...... 1.9 1.0 3.2 1.3 1.2 7. Race relations. 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.0 1.2 Age All 19-25 26-32 33-40 41-47 48-55 55&up Subject Named (1414) (247) (204) (3121 (210) (185) (256) 1. NONE (No subject is unsuitable). 78.0% 76.5% 81.4% 79.2% 77.6% 75.9% 77.0% 2. Religion. . . . 7.7 10.9 6.9 7.1 6.7 5.3 8.6 3. Integration and/ or segregation. 4.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 6.7 6.4 3.2 4. The political views of the owner . . . . . 3.8 3.6 4.0 4.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 5. No subject should be editorialized on...... 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.9 3.7 1.6 6. Another indivi dual ...... 1.9 3.2 3.0 0.6 2.4 1.1 2.0 7. Race relations. 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.4 Class All Stdnt I II III IV V Subject Named (1414) (67) ( 62) (142) (261) (569) (313 1. NONE (No subject is unsuitable). 78.0% 72.7% 69.4% 83.3% 73.0% 75.4% 87.2% 2. Religion. . . . 7.7 15.2 24.2 8.3 12.2 6.6 0.6 3. Integration and/ or segregation. 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.6 5.9 7.8 4. The political views of the owner . . . . . 3.8 1.5 0.0 2.1 4.6 5.1 2.8 117
TABLE 25— Continued
Class All Stdnt I II III IV V Sublect Named (1414) ( 67) ( 62) (142) (261) (569) (313) 5. No subject should be editorialzed on...... 2.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 3.0% 2.8% 1.0% 6. Another indivi dual ...... 1.9 0.0 9.7 0.7 3.1 1.9 0.6 7. Race relations. 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.0
Perhaps It can be said that the South Is more willing to allow discussion of its most controversial issue than is commonly believed.
Conclusions
In general it can be said that a good proportion of those who heard the editorials were willing to see them continued. The reasons ad vanced for this seemed to indicate some awareness of the value of edito
rials as a source of information and a stimulus to thought.
Among those who would take the editorials off the air, fear of
their power is often expressed in rather practical terms -- disagreement,
dislike of bias, loss of station business, and so on. The fear, however,
still seems to be present.
When an attempt was made to focus on specific improvements and
unsuitable topics, an indifference which .seems to be characteristic of
parts of this survey is revealed again. Few respondents have any im
provements to suggest and even fewer have opinions on unsuitable topics.
This concludes the summary of data gathered by this survey. All
the conclusions noted to this point will be drawn together in the follow 118 ing chapter and discussed In the light of Mr. Manship's goals, the emphasis of the Federal Communications Commission on editorializing, and the possible effects of persuasive mass communications. CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS
This study was designed to investigate three specific questions in some detail:
1) How much support will the people of a community like Baton Rouge today give the principle of licensee editorializing? 2) How much information have these people retained from specific editorials? 3) What is the public reaction to this series of edito rials as a whole?
Analysis of the data gathered indicates that certain summary statements and conclusions are justified.
Community Support of the Principle of Television Editorializing
1. Two-thirds of the residents of Baton Rouge did not feel edito rials have enough value to warrant regular listening or viewing. In view of the fact that two-thirds of all respondents had heard of the editorials delivered by Mr. Manship (although not necessarily the same two-thirds) this could be seen as a first indication of unfavorable reaction to the editorials under study.
2. Over half of the respondents agreed that a licensee does have the right to use the facilities of his station to express his opinions on issues of community importance. In short, respondents seemed to feel that the licensee has the right to editorialize, but they don't express any great interest in watching them.
119 120
3. Host of those who would grant this right do not seem to do so out of any sense of the value of such expressions of opinion. Few re spondents said that editorials would be informative and/or interesting.
Instead, the reasons they advance seem based on misconceptions of the rights and duties of broadcasters. Over 80% of the respondents invoked freedom of speech and property rights in a situation in vrtiich neither can really be applied as an absolute principle.
4. There seems to be a somewhat greater awareness of the value of television editorials among non-whites, older respondents (over 41), and those in classes IV and V than in other groups. It is true that the most common reasons advanced by each group for support of the right to editorialize were phrased in terms of right of ownership and free speech.
These groups, however, do include the highest percentage of respondents saying that the editorials "inform the public and are educational."
5. There also seems to be a rather substantial body of fear of the possible effects of television editorials. Over 20% of the respondents expressed some version of the opinion that licensee use of his special position represents an unfair advantage for a given point of view.
6. Among those denying a station owner the right to editorialize, younger respondents (between 19 and 32) were most likely to express their objection in terms of a licensee's duty to serve the public and not ad vocate. This same group expressed the greatest concern over the problem of the media exerting "excessive influence" on the mind of the public.
Respondents over 32, on the other hand, were more concerned with "unfair advantage" and the impropriety of "personal feelings" being expressed on the air. Few in this group seemed concerned with the power of the media 121 to influence. Thus the individuals who were b o m into a society which takes radio and television for granted seem more impressed with the power of these media and more aware of the responsibilities assumed by a li censee than do those who witnessed the growth of radio and television.
7. Approximately two-thirds of the residents of Baton Rouge felt that the right to editorialize carries with it certain responsibilities.
Half of this group felt these responsibilities would be discharged by a simple offer of free time to opposing points of view. Only one-third of all respondents asked seemed to agree with the Federal Communications
Commission opinion that the licensee must actively seek out these oppos ing views.
8. Among the various sex-race, class, and age groups, negroes demonstrated the greatest support for editorials. Over half said they would watch regularly; two-thirds supported the right to editorialize; over 25% gave this support because they felt editorials were interesting and educational; and few expressed any fear of their effects. In view of the content of the editorials in question, though, it would be diffi cult to conclude little more than gratitude among these people for a voice speaking in their behalf.
9. A similar pattern of support for the editorials is seen among younger respondents (under 32), students, and those in classes I and II.
It cannot be said whether this represents greater understanding and ac ceptance of editorials in general or a tendency towards agreement with the positions taken by Mr. Manship. It seems most probable that the results stem from a combination of the two factors.
10. In summary, a large majority of respondents will support the right of a licensee to editorialize on the air. Few, however, express any 122.
Interest in watching them regularly. Even fewer support the right to editorialize through any sense of the value of editorials as such. In addition to this, over 20% of the sample indicates some degree of fear of the possible effects of these editorials. The interest of the Federal
Communications Commission in editorials, then, does not seem to be shared in any great measure by the residents of Baton Rouge.
Public opinion in Baton Rouge on the subject of "equal time" does not parallel the expressed F.C.C. opinion either. Only one-third of the residents of this area would require the licensee to seek out the opposing point of view, although two-thirds of them do agree that free time should be offered.
Retention of Information In the Editorials
11. Approximately 60% of the residents of this area had heard of the editorials delivered by Mr. Manship. Most of this group had heard at least one, were aware of the station over which they were broadcast, and could identify the person editorializing. A large portion of the community, then, was aware of the existence of the editorials and of their source.
12. White men, students, and classes I, II, and III seemed most aware of the existence of these editorials. With the exception of stu dents, each of these groups is also over-represented in the small sub groups of respondents who identified each issue. From this it could be concluded that the editorials were most effective among these groups while age did not seem to be a significant factor. 123
13. The editorials stimulated considerable discussion among those who heard them. Over half the respondents who had heard of an edito rial talked about them within their own families and approximately one-
third discussed them with close and/or casual friends. This conversation
apparently took place between individuals who had already heard an edito
rial for very few respondents first heard of one in conversation with a
friend or fellow worker. Discussion may be an indication of interest in
the editorials, but it seems to have done little to increase their pene
tration.
14. Among the residents of Baton Rouge retention of specific
issues and the positions assumed by Mr. Manship was quite low. Only one
issue was identified by more than 20% of the sample, only two by more
than 15%, and only five by more than 10%. Despite strong indications that
the community was aware of the editorials as such, and that discussion was
fairly widespread, few residents were able or willing to identify the
issues involved.
15. The percentage of white men among those identifying each
issue was, with few exceptions, higher than the percentage of white men
in the total sample. Conversely, the percentage of non-white females and
respondents in class V was consistently lower than the proportion of
these classes to the total sample. It would seem reasonable to conclude
from this that the editorials had greatest impact upon white men and
least upon non-white women and the "lowest" class.
16. The factor of elapsed time between an editorial and the time
a respondent was contacted had little effect on recall. The issue identi
fied by the largest number of respondents was developed almost three months 124 prior to the beginning of the survey. Two editorials delivered In early
November were recalled by the second largest number of respondents. On the other hand, an issue discussed less than a week prior to the survey was identified by only 4% of the respondents.
17. One cause of the low level of retention is what appears to be a low potential audience for the editorials. None of them were broadcast at a time of peak viewing and, despite the fact that more than one edito rial was devoted to most issues, the cumulative potential audience aver aged only 22.3% of the population of Baton Rouge (although this is a conservative estimate).
18. Of the four issues in which the percentage recalling dis cussion of an issue approaches the percentage of persons in the potential audience, two deal with Louisiana State University and a third with a proposed tax increase. Thus respondents seem best able to recall dis cussion of local and/or immediately personal problems. This conclusion must be qualified, however, by the observation that recall of two issues dealing with the problem of integration of the schools in Baton Rouge was comparatively low.
19. The above would indicate that the "persuasive mass communi cation" provided by Mr. Manship had little effect on the community of
Baton Rouge. If retention is accepted as an indication of the degree to which the information and opinion offered enters into the decision-making process, few of these editorials had much effect. It is not likely that the editorials opposing a tax increase did more than reinforce attitudes already held by many citizens of the area, and this was the issue most often recalled. The second most commonly recalled issue was protest over 125 the original secrecy surrounding the first special session of the Legis lature and this too seems likely to have been a position held by many residents. On issues of central concern to Mr. Manship — the necessity of accepting the authority of the Federal Government, the foolishness of the actions of the state government, the doctrine of "interposition," and
so on — his discussion seems to have been largely ignored or forgotten by most respondents. Where persuasion was a more likely goal, then, the editorials were apparently something of a failure. Whether this failure
should be traced to the editorials alone, to the time of broadcast, to
lack of promotion, or to a combination of these factors is not the issue here. In terms of persuasive intent, the editorials failed to reach
their goal.
20. Respondents were apparently justified in not rating edito
rials very highly as a source of information. The generally low level of
retention noted above indicates that this channel of information was not used very extensively by L'.e public. Whether or not this use would in
crease if the editorials were placed on a regular basis, promoted, and
scheduled earlier is not known. At present, however, the above conclu
sions must stand as further evidence that the public does not share the
enthusiasm of the Federal Communications Commission for editorials as a
source of information and opinion.
Reaction to the Entire Series
21. Over half (55%) of the 828 respondents who had heard of the
editorials agreed that they should be continued. This is comparable to
the 58% of all respondents who agreed that a station owner had the right
to editorialize. The questions are not completely parallel, but they are 126 similar enough to indicate that there is little difference of opinion between the sub-sample that had heard of the editorials and the total sample --at least on the question of continuation.
22. Those who feel these editorials should be continued show a greater realization of their value than was noted among those in the total sample who would defend the right of a station owner to editorialize (see
Conclusion number three). When asked why this specific series of edito rials should be continued, many respondents spoke of their value as another source of information and of their interesting nature, etc. This, however, probably does not represent conflicting data. The entire sample was asked the question about the right of a licensee to editorialize.
Only those who had heard of an editorial were asked if Mr. Manship's edito rials should be continued. Having heard at least one of these editorials,, this group could be expected to have opinions differing somewhat from those advanced by the entire sample. That the shift was towards a greater under standing of the value of such editorials would seem to be a credit for Mr.
Manship
23. Fear of the possible effects of such persuasive mass communi cation is expressed by over 20% of the respondents who would not allow Mr.
Manship to continue his editorials. This fear still ranks as a major rea
son advanced by those who would keep broadcast editorials off the air.
24. Respondents who had heard the editorials had few improvements to suggest. The most popular suggestion was some sort of debate format, while two-thirds of the respondents made no suggestions at all. This
could be seen as evidence of satisfaction, but probably represents a lack
of interest and thought as well. 127
25. Despite the preoccupation of the South with the question of integration, few respondents in this area feel that this subject is not
suitable for television editorials. In view of the positions assumed by
Mr. Manship, it could be concluded that this region is more willing to allow discussion of the issue than is commonly believed.
26. With the exception of an apparent shift towards greater under
standing of the value of broadcast editorials among respondents who had been exposed to them, the editorials studied here seem to have had little
effect on public reaction to such expressions of opinion. Fear of their possible effect is expressed by similar proportions of the exposed sub
group and the entire sample. Approximately the same proportions would
permit the editorials to continue (or would give the licensee the "right").
If one assumes that answers to the questions on general principles asked
the entire sample, and summarized in conclusions one through ten, repre
sent general community opinion prior to Mr. Manship's editorials, and that
the responses summarized in this group of conclusions represent the opin
ions of those exposed to these editorials, it seems apparent that the
editorials caused little change in public opinion on the general prin
ciple of editorializing.
27. Respondents were not very helpful with suggestions for im
proving future editorials. Aside from a suggested debate format, and
avoidance of religious issues, the public had little to add. Earlier
conclusions, however, would suggest that scheduling at times of peak
viewing, consideration of a degree of promotion, and discussion of
strictly local and/or personal significance could result in a more effec
tive series. General Conclusions
An evaluation of these editorials should first be made in terms
of their purpose as seen by Mr. Manship. His primary concern was neither with the attitude of the Federal Communications Commission towards edito
rializing nor an abstract interest in the effects of persuasive mass com munications. A summary of the purpose and philosophy behind the edito
rials is found on pages 28 and 29 of Chapter II.
When asked to summarize his purpose in a brief sentence, Mr.
Manship stated that it was to reason with the people in his community in
an attempt to stir up some protest against the actions of the Governor
and the Legislature.^- Thus his intent was persuasive, was viewed in terms
of the entire community, and included action as its ultimate goal.
Judged against these standards, the editorials must be seen as
unsuccessful. With the exception of Mr. Manship, no responsible voice
in the community was raised in protest, nor did any strong body of public
opinion express itself in opposition to the action of the state govern
ment — with one possible exception, noted below. In general, the
community was silent throughout the sessions of the Legislature.
The only possible exception to this conclusion is seen in the
recall of editorials opposing the proposed tax increase. This was remem
bered by the largest number of respondents and the existence of a sizeable
body of opposition to the proposal is indicated by the refusal of the
State Senate to authorize the increase. As noted earlier, though, it is
quite likely that editorials on this subject did little more than rein-
Interview with Mr. Douglas Manship, president and general mana ger of WBRZ-TV, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 27, 1962. 129 force attitudes already existing In the minds of the people of Baton
Rouge.
The existence of some public resentment over the secrecy with which Governor Davis surrounded his original plans for a special session may have been uncovered by the recall of Mr. Manship18 discussion of this point. This issue was remembered by the second largest number of re spondents, but at the time of the survey the issue of secrecy was no longer important. The plans of the Governor were plain to everyone and a protest against secrecy was unnecessary.
No other issue was recalled by as many as 15% of the respondents.
In terms of persuasion in this community, then, these editorials cannot be considered successful.
An examination of some of the strong and weak points observed may provide an insight into the reasons for this lack of success. In the first place, the editorials were not broadcast at a time of peak viewing. The local WBRZ-TV news program at 6:00 had, in November, 1960, an average Monday through Friday rating of 47 and an average weekend rating of 37. It seems quite probable that editorials delivered as a part of this program would have reached a larger audience -- and had a greater effect.
The philosophy underlying these editorials was important, but
somewhat remote from the day-to-day considerations of the average person.
The fact that three of the issues recalled by the largest portion of the
estimated potential audience were concerned with issues of local and
immediately personal importance is an indication that consideration of
a principle must be in terms of issues close to the proposed audience. 130
The question of promotion of the editorials is a difficult one.
A person interested in persuasion wants to reach those who disagree with him or are indifferent. Advance promotion, on the other hand, would seem likely to draw an audience largely made up of those who agree with his point of view — especially after his first one or two editorials had made his general position quite clear. As Klapper says:
The tendency of people to expose themselves to mass com munications in accord with their existing opinions and interests and to avoid unsympathetic material, has been widely demonstrated.
Public interest in the debate format is ah indication that more of a dialogue between Mr. Manship and state officials would have attracted greater attention. The refusal of state officials to enter into the dis cussion, with one exception, made such a dialogue impossible. It would
seem, though, that any future planning of a similar series should in
clude consideration of casting the discussions in such a form.
Turning from a consideration of the editorials in terms of Mr.
Manship's purpose, it seems evident that the people of Baton Rouge do not share the enthusiasm of the Federal Communications Commission for
broadcast editorials. Few respondents show any inclination to watch them
regularly and, at least when asked with no prior reference to the editori
als in this community, few see much value in the editorials themselves.
In addition to this, the fact that little information was retained from
these editorials stands as an indication that the editorials were not
being used extensively as a source of information.
^Joseph T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 19-20. 131
There is, however, some evidence that exposure to specific edito rials does stimulate an increased appreciation of the value of such com munication among those who view them. It seems possible that a long, con
tinued series of editorials could increase public interest and heighten
the impact of the editorials. Such a series would have to be of local in
terest, closely related to the viewers, and, preferably, part of a pre
sentation of conflicting opinions. Circumstances necessary to make such
a series possible do not always exist in a community and care should be
taken to insure that editorials are not broadcast merely for the sake of
broadcast.
The effects of persuasive mass communications in the community
seem to have been slight. Thus the fear expressed by some of the possi
ble effects of such communication are ill founded — at least in this
community at this time. In addition to this, the commercial broadcaster
probably has little reason to fear a loss of audience if he deals with
controversy. Despite the positions assumed by Mr. Manship, a majority of
respondents would support his right to editorialize and would allow him
to continue. Also, station WBRZ-TV noted no decrease in audience or
business during the time the editorials were broadcast.
As a final point, there is some evidence that the residents of
Baton Rouge are not aware of the public service responsibilities of
broadcasters. Many respondents will grant the right to editorialize only
because the licensee "owns" the station or because of the right of "free
speech." Also, only one-third of those questioned agreed with the F.C.C.
contention that a broadcaster must seek out opposing views if he expresses
his opinion on the air. 132
Despite the lack of Impact noted In this community, It is possi ble that other broadcasters could make much more effective persuasive use of their facilities. When and where this is done the existence of public understanding of the obligations and responsibilities assumed by such a
licensee is the most effective protection against the possible mis-use of
such facilities. The Federal Communications Commission has apparently not communicated a clear understanding of its standards to the public —
at least in this community. It would seem that the work of the Commis
sion would be simpler and more effective if it did so.
Suggestions for Further Study
The study described herein has only begun to consider a rather
complex problem. Several possibilities for further research suggest
themselves. Similar studies of editorials in other communities would
indicate whether or not the response noted here is typical. A study in
a community in which editorials are broadcast regularly at the same time
of day could give an indication of the effects of regular presentation.
Community reaction to editorial expressions in other media could be com
pared with reactions to broadcast editorials. The reasons behind the
public attitude towards broadcast editorials could be probed with the
intent of making some suggestions for the improvement of this attitude.
Other types of information ("hard" news, commentary, etc.) and other
channels (newspapers, magazines, etc.) could be examined in an effort to
evaluate the use to which the public puts all its channels of information.
This, of course, is only the beginning of what could be an ex
tensive list of suggestions. It is hoped that this study will stimulate 133 others Into these areas in an effort to Investigate the many ways people use the mass media available in such profusion today.
1 APPENDIX A "GOVERNMENT IN THE DARK"
November 6, 1960
Governor Davis has called the Louisiana Legislature into emer gency session. He has done so without telling anyone what he is about to do. Accordingly, the people of this state have had no opportunity to voice their reactions to his plans. Seemingly he proposes to have the legislature meet and act before anyone has an opportunity to know what he is about. We feel that Government in the dark does not become the Governor of Louisiana. The people of Louisiana have the basic right to know what their elected Governor proposes to do. There has not been one responsible voice raised in defense or support of the Governor's action in this instance. Many of the state's legislators have right fully protested this type of star-chamber proceeding being asked of them by the Governor. The people, we again say, are entitled to know what goes on here. We say that Governor Davis should immediately, openly and frankly tell the people of Louisiana what he plans to do.
Government by intrigue, mystery, silence and darkness smacks to us of dictatorship,
135 "THE LEGISLATURE"
November 10, 1960
Honest men may hold different opinions on the merits of desegre gating our public schools, but it is difficult to see how any might con sider justifiable the present legislative session and its projected legislation. The issue is not segregation; it is whether we should con tinue to have government under law.
Bills presently before the legislature purport to make possible the disregard of a federal order directing the Orleans Parish School
Board to place into operation a plan for the desegregation of the public schools of that parish. Two principal devices would be used to effec tuate that purpose. Under the first, known as "interposition," the
state would declare through its own organs of government that the matter of segregation or desegregation of the races in public schools is not within the authority of the federal government and then proceed to
operate the schools on a segregated basis. The second device would be
to close the schools rather than to operate them on any desegregated basis. Neither of these devices would seem to have any merit.
The assumption underlying the interposition argument is that the
individual states are not bound by a decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States as to the authority of the United States versus that
of the individual states under the Constitution. Such a contention might be plausible if it were possible to consider the United States a
federation of separate states rather than a single nation, but that
theory of the nature of our country was settled violently by the Civil 136 137
War. Nor is It reasonable today to contend that the Supreme Court of the United States does not have supreme authority to determine the mean ing of the Constitution.
The second device, the closure of the schools rather than desegre gation, presupposes that the state has the right to determine whether it will or will not operate a public school system. That the state may go out of the education business in undeniable. But it is quite another thing to say that the state may suddenly abandon its elaborate public school system and leave the people without adequate means for a good edu cation. To withdraw gradually from education, in a manner which would permit the establishment of adequate private schools, should be a legal possibility, if not an advisable one. To abandon the public school system abruptly, however, would seem to constitute a deprivation of pro perty without due process of law. The availability of public schools certainly could be construed as a property right of which the state could not, under the Fourteenth Amendment, deprive its citizens without warning and without time to provide otherwise for education.
Yet even more serious than the probable unconstitutionality of
the proposed legislation is the manner in which the extra session was
called and its mode of action. The Governor's call was in terms too
general to inform either the public or the legislators of the proposals
to be introduced. The legislators from Orleans, the parish most concerned with the bills, do not appear to have been consulted or informed of what
to expect. The bills themselves are based on the idea of home rule for
the state against the nation, but would deny home rule for Orleans Parish
against the state, at least in this matter of segregation in the schools. 138
The whole atmosphere of the proceedings is such as to make It appear
that any legislator who would not vote for the bills should be considered
suspect. It has been a long time since we have witnessed the legislators
reduced to such puppetry. The forms of law probably have been observed.
But good faith certainly seems to be lacking. Some few, at least, would
seem to be more intent on defying the federal government and seeing their
opposition to desegregation gratified than on maintaining the traditional
standards of governmental action or, even more important, maintaining the
welfare of the people. "EMOTION, REASON, AND THE SCHOOL CRISIS"
November 13, 1960
Surrender to emotion clouds the reason and easily leads to action lacking In wisdom and prudence. The result can be far more disastrous than the conditions which occasioned our excitement. It is advisable, therefore, that we force ourselves to appraise calmly and honestly what we have done and what we may be about to do in the current controversy over the desegregation of the public schools.
The present crisis has grown out of the refusal of the State of
Louisiana, acting through the Governor and its legislature, to accept the ruling of the United States Supreme Court that under the conditions of life in our time the segregation of the races in our public schools is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Many persons question the soundness of that judgment of the Supreme Court. For the sake of argument let us say that it is unsound. Even so, it is the function of the United States Supreme Court to settle disputes as to the meaning, application, and enforcement of the Constitution. Its judg ments may not be infallible, but they are authoritative. They are rendered precisely to settle peaceably legal issues on which contend ing parties do not agree. If we believe the Supreme Court's interpreta tion of the Constitution to be erroneous, then we may ask that Court to reconsider its interpretation. That remedy having been exhausted, we may seek to amend the Constitution through lawful procedures. But we cannot simply refuse to comply with the Supreme Court's interpretation of our fundamental organic law without being in rebellion against our form of government. 139 140
This brings us to a consideration of the morals of rebellion.
There is indeed a right of rebellion, but it is conditioned on certain factors. Its purpose must be to avoid a serious moral wrong which can not be remedied through lawful procedures. Its success must be reason ably certain. Its achievement of that success must not be at the cost of more harm than would result from the condition which prompts the re volt. Whatever one thinks of the morality of desegregation, it is abso lutely certain that even forceful resistance in the present case is doomed to failure. The federal government cannot permit a state to
flaunt the decrees of its courts, even if it must use the force of arms.
More seriously, the harm which might result from the desegregation of our schools is not likely to approximate the tragedies which the attempt to secure our demands by force is likely to produce. The blood of any person, white or black, would be too great a price to pay.
Already the Governor and the Legislature have surrendered to
their emotions. If they persist in their efforts to block token desegre gation of the schools at all costs, inestimable harm may result. If so,
theirs will be the blame, theirs will be the guilt. It will not be that
of the federal agencies whose duty it is to enforce the Constitution as
authoritatively interpreted. The Governor and the Legislature would have
done the people of the state a greater service had they directed their
enormous energies and expenditures to the task of devising and implement
ing a plan for the gradual, orderly transformation of our public school
system into one acceptable under the supreme law of the land as inter
preted by the organ of government charged with that responsibility. It
is to be hoped that they will show more wisdom, more prudence, and more awareness of their own responsibilities for government under law, rather than in opposition to it, at the legislative session which convenes this
Sunday. "THE GREAT TRAGEDY"
November 14, 1960
The Louisiana Legislature is, by its words and actions today, inciting the people of Louisiana to violence. This is the great tragedy of our State today. The Legislature has abandoned reason and has adopted tactics which only appeal to passion.
You, the citizens of Louisiana, are being urged by your Legis lators to disregard, and openly violate, a system of laws that has stood the test of time, for two hundred years. Only tragedy and sorrow can come to those who choose the path of violence, and not the path of reason.
The State of Louisiana was deliberately set upon the course that put it where it is today by people in the Louisiana Government who had full knowledge that their actions would produce exactly this result.
The people of Louisiana must halt this headlong flight from sanity that is being advocated by members of the official government of the State.
If you believe, as I do, that the present turmoil is not good, and that reason should be restored, I urge you to so advise your Legis lator.
Issues in the current integration and segregation controversy are not clouded. Many of us have different views on the problem, which has been with us all our lives.
Solution will not come easy. All social reforms are slow, laborious and painful. The "reasonable" course of action is our only hope to maintain law and order. 142 143
Therefore, in summary, I urge the following:
First: That the Governor of the State of Louisiana put an imme diate end to the tragic comedy now in progress. It is within his power to do so.
Second: That each and every one of you communicate with your
Legislator, and directly to Governor Davis himself,and advise them of your views. By all means give voice to your opinions. If you remain silent in this moment of crisis, then you are equally at fault with the worst, and you must share the blame for all tragic consequences.
Third: That all of us exercise reason and common sense in our handling of this crisis, before murder is committed in the name of free dom. "CIVILIZATION AND POLITICAL ACTION"
December 9, 1960
Political philosophers remind us that the mark of civilization in contrast to barbarism is the willingness of a people to determine their courses of action on the basis of sincere rational discussion con ducted calmly by informed and responsible men. When the debate becomes emotional rather than rational, when the argument exists in form but not in substance, when men refuse to adhere to the conclusions of the argument, or when those charged with conducting the debate pervert their authority by using it as an instrument of will rather than reason, then civilization is on the wane.
Our founding fathers declared their political philosophy in the
Declaration of Independence and later, in the Constitution of the United
States, they gave final form to the structure of government through which the political debate was to be conducted. Under that Constitution
the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases arising
under the Constitution itself and this judicial power is vested in the
Federal Courts. The debate, therefore, so far as it relates to the mean
ing of the Constitution, receives its final and decisive character in
the decisions of these Federal Courts. To refuse to follow the decisions
of the Federal Courts after they have finally determined what action is
required of us under the Constitution is to throw aside the mark of
civilization.
144 145
So, too, is the way of civilization at an end when the institu-
% tions of government and law are used to hinder and to obstruct the execu tion of those decisions. With power goes responsibility. Thus, we have the gravest cause for alarm when the Governor and the legislature use the power entrusted to them in a manner calculated to interfere with the orderly implementation of decisions stating the law of the land. In doing so the Governor and the legislature commit a breach of public trust, pervert their offices, and destroy the respect for government under and
according to law without which no state can long survive. Just as power
creates responsibility in government, so responsibility limits the legi
timate exercise of governmental power.
It is important that the Governor and the legislature come to
the realization that their responsibility determines not only the moral
ity, but also the legality of their acts. It is for this reason that
various recent enactments undoubtedly within the power of the legislature
in a formal sense (for example, those in terms directed toward the reor
ganization of the Orleans Parish schools administration) were properly
declared unconstitutional. The forms of law may not be used to subvert
the law itself, and there can be no doubt that these enactments were
passed to obstruct the enforcement of the law of the land as authorita
tively interpreted by the Federal Courts. Moreover, it is the responsi
bility and the obligation of the officers of state not to create in the
public mind hopes which, rightly or wrongly, cannot be realized and not
to use public funds to foster or maintain those false hopes. Yet, there
are rumors of still another special session of the legislature to continue
the same unlawful and immoral tactics and even to impose on the people an
increased tax burden to finance these tactics. It is to be hoped that the Governor and the legislature will come to their senses and fulfill their public trusts in a manner be fitting officials of a civilized community. "WE NEED TO KNOW . .
December 12, 1960
In a roundabout way, Governor Jimmie Davis has indicated the next thing on his agenda is an extra one cent sales tax, ostensibly for continuing the fight on integration. Before the legislature adopts this tax — if it does — we need to have some things clarified.
We need to know these things:
1. What is the actual anticipated cost for whatever moves are now being planned in the executive sessions of the legislature in ths matter of segregation?
2. What are the future financial plans for education? Can the public be given ample opportunity to study them? Can the plans be financed without a new tax?
3. Will this legislature saddle the state with a new tax cost ing the people some $45 million a year and then fail in their objective because of unremitting opposition of the Federal Courts?
4. It has been indicated the tax is to finance the program ap proved last week for giving money to children who want to go to private schools, to avoid integration. But no one has shown what that cost will be. The tax would probably produce $45 million, but the need to finance such a program, if Virginia may be taken as an example, probably will not exceed $1 or $2 million, at least in the first year. What does
Governor Davis plan to do with the rest of the money?
147 148
5. What will be the effect of a new sales tax on the hoped for industrial development of our state?
These are not idle questions. On the contrary, they are serious questions. We ought to have the answers before the legislature even con siders putting on a new tax which could be with us for years to come.
On previous occasions, we have expressed our concern over the lack of candor we find in the present leadership in advising the people and the legislators just what is contemplated. Bills suddenly appear in the legislative halls and are pushed to speedy adoption. No one can say now just why a sales tax is being discussed for the state. We can't
say the state is bankrupt. We can't say the state is rich. We have no way of knowing. The officials simply aren't telling, so that there could be an independent appraisal of the need for an additional tax.
Surely, in an issue that will affect so many people, we ought to know what the plans are and what they are expected to cost. "THE LEGISLATURE, THE UNIVERSITY AND THE PROFESSOR"
December 13, 1960
Today the Louisiana House censured an LSU professor for daring to write a letter to the Senator from his parish expressing disapproval of the anti-desegregation measures passed by the Legislature. Not only was he censured for so doing, but the House Un-American Activities
Committee was asked to investigate further his and other similar actions of University personnel. For a while the House resolution of censure even proposed that twenty-five million dollars, already promised to LSU, be withheld until such time as the University through its governing body gave assurance that its faculty and staff would not express opinions contrary to those of the Legislature.
It is serious enough that a legislative organ of a state of the
Union should have attempted to censure a person for uttering his poli tical opinion. Free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is
Infinitely more serious that the censure should be made of a person ex pressing an opinion consistent with the Constitution of the United
States as interpreted by the authorities which have the right so to do.
It is unbelievable that a University, though financed by legislatively appropriated funds, should be expected to control the statements of its administrators, faculty or staff, and be threatened with denial of funds if it failed to do so. It is ironic, too, that the House should hint that there is something un-American about urging action consistent with the
Constitution and judgments of the United States.
149 In this secular age there is no Church whose pronouncements on right and wrong will be accepted by the vast majority of citizens.
Guidance for practical action, therefore, must be sought elsewhere. Of all human institutions, none has a better right to speak on the truth than a university faculty. The discovery of truth and its dissemination is the first role of a university. Its faculty is trained for that pur pose and that purpose primarily. If university faculties are silenced through threats and coercion, then the day is won by those who have the power, but not necessarily the best qualifications, to guide the citizenry.
It is unfortunate that the political conditions are such that the Uni versity administration does not feel it can encourage its faculty, and especially those concerned with law and government, to state their in formed opinions. It is unfortunate that more members of university faculties, both public and private, have not dared to give guidance openly in the present controversy. "LOUISIANA WITCH HUNT"
December 17, 1960
The proper conduct for citizens of Louisiana in this day and time is to approve everything that our state Legislature does. So that there can be no doubt in anyone's mind, I wish now to approve of everything that the state Legislature has done and is doing.
Therefore, it is good to know that our Legislature is on guard against all un-American acts such as the writing of letters by private citizens to their elected representatives. It is also encouraging to note that the Legislature feels that this patrol of such un-American activities is so important that they are asking sixty thousand dollars of your tax money to do the job thoroughly. This sixty thousand dol
lars, of course, is just to investigate our un-American Louisiana State
University.
In an effort to help the Legislature in their investigation at
L.S.U., it seems appropriate to suggest that our legislator-investiga
tors broaden their field of investigation to assure everyone who has an
interest in L.S.U. that, in addition to there being no un-American acti vities at L.S.U., there are also no witches or demons -- for universi
ties are noted historically as being gathering places for witches and
demons. Really, what the state of Louisiana needs more than anything at
the present time is a good, legislatively sponsored and conducted witch
hunt.
151 152
To this end, I would like to suggest that they consider this edict which was registered by the Parliament of France in the year
1682 . . .
Article I
All persons practicing divination, or calling themselves fortune tellers, will, after publication of this edict, immediately vacate their houses, on pain of corporal punishment.
Article II
All practices and acts of magic or superstition, in word or
speech, either profaning the text of holy writ or the liturgy (by charms), or saying or doing things which cannot be explained naturally (in pro phecies), are forbidden. Those who have taught as well as those who have practiced or made use of such acts for whatever purpose are to be sum marily punished according to the gravity of their offense.
Article III
If after publication of this edict, evil-minded persons augment
and compound superstition with impiety and sacrilege, under pretext of working fancied acts of magic or other deceptions of similar nature (such
as necromancy), they are to be punished, and subject to the penalty of
death. December 21, 1960
I have appeared before you on a number of occasions during the
special sessions of the Legislature. As has been pointed out, these are perilous times in Louisiana -- reason has been ignored — tempers have flared -- and some of the exhibitions reported almost daily have degraded many of our people, some of them members of the legislature.
During my statements deploring these things, I have repeatedly said
that each person's views are his own and must be applied as each person
sees fit. I have also criticized the governor and the legislature on a number of points.
Today, the Legislature is to be congratulated. Its apparent re
fusal to pass the proposal to increase taxes seems to me to be a step
in the right direction. It was difficult for many members of the House
to vote against the sales tax because of the many pressures that are normally placed on members of our governmental body. Although the tax
question will be voted on again tomorrow, we would hope that the line
now drawn will hold firm.
As for the tax issue itself, it is proper to suggest that it
really isn't necessary at all. If the governor wants additional money,
he needs only to digest today's state news to find it. This news reports
that hundreds too many people have been added to the state payroll at an
estimated annual cost of more than two million dollars. One lease on a
Baton Rouge building not yet constructed will give the owner a profit of
about $500,000, and there are indications of current excessive dead-head
153 154 payrolling which may well shock the people when brought to light. We fail to see the sense in increasing the taxes of the people of this state in view of these known developments . . . and particularly so when we re flect that the governor preached austerity in his inaugural address, his campaign, and his first speech to the Legislature. Also, we don't know of any concerted effort by the administration to practice this austerity.
Conditions are serious when there is an attempt to burden further the already over-burdened people of the state with a tax which proponents of the segregation issue doubt will decide the problem — or is even necessary. Stand fast, gentlemen of the Legislature . . . and again, congratulations. "THE GREATEST TRAGEDY"
January 5, 1961
The abuse of power is always tragic. Even if he causes no harm to anyone else, the abuser of power, by pridefully preferring his own objectives to the fulfillment of his obligations, mis-uses his intel lect and will, thereby perverts his nature, and produces a personal tragedy. If the abuse deprives others of that to which they are en titled, then it produces social tragedy which merits the opposition of fellow men and justifies the use of the force of organized society to repair the wrong and to prevent its repetition. Now — if the abuse of power is by those to whom civil society has entrusted the means for the maintenance and enforcement of good order, the evil produced is even more tragic, for there is no ready machinery to combat it.
For the last two months we have certainly witnessed repeated instances of this third, or public, type of tragedy. The Legislature and the Governor have repeatedly abused their power by refusing to act within the framework of the Constitution of the United States, which
Constitution they have all sworn to protect and to enforce. Worse, they have misled many citizens entitled to guidance into believing that the final authority to determine the law of the land is in the state organs of government rather than in those of the Federal Government.
Further, they have, through threats of economic reprisal and of villifi- cation of reputation effectively made institutions and individuals afraid to exercise the sacred rights of petition and of freedom of ex- 155 156 pression of political opinion. Now the Louisiana House of Representa tives has done, what it could do to impose upon the people an additional tax burden, ostensibly to carry on the unlawfully conducted fight for segregation in the public schools, but more probably to finance other projects not yet disclosed. Serious as these evils are, the greatest tragedy is that they have met with so little public or open opposition.
Certainly many citizens must recognize the situation for what it is, a challenge to the very principles under which we have sought to live, and yet few are the voices that have been raised in protest. Can it be that there is so little concern for the maintenance of government according to law, or for the rights of petition and freedom of speech for which our forefathers fought and risked so much?
Can it be that as a people we have grown so selfish and so callous toward the plight of others that we are not willing to protest what does not affect us immediately as individuals? Can it be that we have grown so soft in character that we are afraid to take some personal risks for the sake of principle? Can it be that we have forgotten that the Nazi and Facist regimes were able to establish themselves in large measure because of the fear and failure of citizens to make their opposition felt?
The abuses of our state government cannot continue if those who recognize and appreciate the danger will only use every means at their command to oppose them. Public condemnation is the only peaceful weapon which can be sufficiently effective when so many officials of government pervert their offices. We must have public condemnation if we are to preserve our form of Government and keep our personal dignity and integrity. January 7, 1961
The great fraudulent pattern of the special legislative sessions now becomes apparent. We now see that the real purpose of these ses sions of the Legislature was not to fight integration in the schools — for the Louisiana Legislature has been doing this for years — and all of the laws necessary to test the Federal Government in this field of conflict were already on the statute books. Yes, the real purpose of these special legislative sessions was to pass an additional sales tax on the people of Louisiana — a new tax as odious as any tax can be.
If the legislative sessions are convened only to fight desegre gation, and if a higher sales tax is essential to that battle, then why did the Governor and his administrators wait through two special ses sions of the Legislature to introduce the measure?
They waited until this third session only for the reason that it took that length of time to insure the control of enough legislators for the passage of the additional tax.
. By the time the third special session convened, the Legislature -- by its own previous words and actions — labeled anyone who opposed any matter that came before that body as a communist or a fellow traveler to a communist.
It is no longer shameful to compromise your vote in the Louisiana
Legislature. It is only shameful to oppose any action of that body as proposed by Governor Davis' administration through its legislative
spokesmen. The people of Louisiana have a tax bill of almost two million
157 158 dollars — from their legislators — as a result of these legislative sessions.
Now there are carefully controlled reports of still a fourth special session of the Legislature — another waste of almost a half million dollars of taxpayers monies, a gift from Governor Davis into the pockets of the legislators.
These reports of this fourth session are no doubt designed to
influence those legislators -- who still have the courage to oppose the administration's course of action -- with the threat of more weeks of useless and expensive wrangling. The past servility of many Louisiana
legislators to former state administrations is nothing compared with the present spectacle that the people of Louisiana are now witnessing.
What manner of man is he who would trade tax money for votes and would tax the people of Louisiana more and more? What manner of man is
he who would sell his vote for insurance commissions, promises of trade
schools and other personal monetary gains?
What manner of man is he who would execute contracts that fla
grantly reward his political allies?
What manner of man is he who would fire public servants in re
prisal for the vote of independent legislators?
What manner of man is he who would put wives, musicians, singers
and others of his patrons on the public payroll?
What manner of man is he who would openly solicit business
favors and create personal businesses that exist principally on public
funds while he enjoys a position of power, influence and authority? What maimer of man is he who would wish to control thought and actions of a citizenry and label all who oppose him as communists?
What maimer of man is he who would know of scandal and turn his head and even secretly participate in unethical practices? Do we have such a man or men in.our Louisiana Legislative Assembly? Or elsewhere in our Louisiana Government? "MORAL INDIFFERENCE"
January 13, 1961
The Governor has called a fourth extra-ordinary session of the legislature. It is not likely that the call was made for any reason but to continue the courses of action of the preceding three extra ordinary sessions, which have served so well to demonstrate the moral callousness which has come to our society — along with our organs and officers of government, for the present situation could not have come to be, or continue so long to exist, without the culpable cooperation of substantial numbers in the body politic.
It is not likely that many members of the legislature, and especially those who are lawyers, honestly believe that the State of
Louisiana has a right to set itself against the law of the land as interpreted and applied by the courts of the United States. Yet this is the essence of the foundation for all the Legislature has done to fight desegregation in the public schools.
So, it is not likely that our Governor or a substantial number of the legislators sincerely believe they have any legal right to oppose the execution of the federal court judgments ordering desegregation in the public schools. If, therefore, they consider themselves justified in proposing and passing unconstitutional legislation and in threatening and taking vengeance against all subject to their power who dare oppose
their collective thought, it must be because they consider it unimpor
tant to state truth objectively, unimportant that they deceive(large seg-
160 161 ments of the population who rely upon them for guidance, unimportant that they harm persons who manifest a desire to live according to the law. While if may be emphasized again that honest men may well hold different opinions regarding segregation or desegregation, it is incon ceivable that honest and moral men can believe it permissible to resort
to such tactics to have their way.
Unfortunately, it seems that the battle may be much more for
financial advantage and increased political control than it is for
segregation.
Turning from the Governor and the legislature to their victims,
it may be stated certainly that there are very many persons who do not
approve, and who deplore, their actions. Yet, public opposition and
open resistance to the Governor and the legislature is far less than one would hope to expect. No doubt, many who would like to speak or act are
deterred by the realization that retaliation would be swift and sure,
either on them or on persons or institutions with whom or which they are
associated. Their great problem is, of course, one of prudence in the
face of evil, and their dilemma is a genuine one. Yet, one cannot help wondering whether there is not often too much prudence and too little
assumption of responsibility, and too much willingness to sacrifice
principle for the temporary stay of official wrath.
It would be unreasonable, after all, to believe that moral in
difference has come only to our officials and not to others in our
society. "SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT"
January 17, 1961
Saturday night a representative of Governor Davis appeared on this station at our invitation to deliver a rebuttal statement to an editorial presented by this station on Friday night. We shall always offer equal time for such statements. We will not challenge opinions of such speakers. But we must demand that any factual data presented in such statements be accurate; otherwise we feel an obligation to set the record straight. Such is the case tonight.
In Mr. McCollister's statement Saturday night, he tried to dis miss recent reports of rapid growth in state employees under the Davis administration. He suggested that the reports had not taken into con sideration the opening of the new Lake Charles Hospital, nor had they taken into account the new agencies brought under civil service since
Governor Davis took office. He simply tried to camouflage the facts.
I will now report the facts to you. The source of the report which Mr. McCollister wished to discredit is the P.A.R. Legislative
Bulletin published December 19. This report was prepared by the Public
Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, an organization which has been doing research on state government for ten years. WBRZ has checked again with P.A.R., and they reaffirm their initial report is thoroughly accurate. Here is what it shows.
During the last six months Governor Long was in office -- from
November 30, 1959 to May 30, 1960 -- a total of 236 employees were 162 163 added to civil service positions. During the first six months under
Governor Davis — May 30, 1960 to November 30, 1960 -- a total of 612 employees were added to civil service. Now get this, for it comes directly from the P.A.R. report — these figures exclude employees of the Lake Charles Charity Hospital and the Contractors Board which were added after May 31. Why did Mr. McCollister indicate the opposite?
The report goes on to show that new civil service employees have therefore been added at a rate of 102 a month during the first six months of the present administration, as compared to 39 a month during
the last six months of the Long administration. This, mind you, is exclusive of nearly 400 other civil service employees added to the Lake
Charles hospital, the Contractors Board, and other agencies brought under civil service in recent months.
Governor Davis stated clearly in his budget message to the
joint legislative session in May that it would be his policy to reduce
the number of employees by as much as ten per cent during the coming
year. Instead, his record is one of adding to the state payroll at an
alarmingly fast rate. Governor Davis has not kept faith with the peo
ple. If this practice continues, we can expect a financial crisis in
the not too distant future -- a crisis of the governor's making.
As I said earlier, Governor Davis and his associates are in
vited to appear on this station in the future on an equal time basis.
But we must urge closer adherence to the facts; otherwise we will be
obligated to set the record straight again. February 3, 1961
No one can doubt seriously that it is only a matter of a very short time before the Federal District Court will fix the date by which the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board must begin the gradual desegre gation of our public schools. No matter how distasteful the thought may be to some, we must all prepare to respect that order. No less can be expected from a people who cherish government under law. No less can be tolerated by a people who must understand that the common good must be preferred to the satisfaction of pride and prejudice.
No matter how erroneous or inadvisable any may believe this in terpretation of the Constitution to be which now requires us to desegre gate public schools, we must respect it as the law because it is not demonstrably unreasonable and because it has been declared to be the law by the -authoritative processes and organs of government. Unless we do so, we shall undermine the law and in so doing undermine our highest practical basis of public order; for in a society which tolerates all creeds and all philosophies, the only point of reference for unity in practical civil action is the law determined according to the accepted processes.
We must, too, acknowledge the futility of further efforts to resist the desegregation of the public schools in Louisiana and the harm which would certainly result therefrom to all in the community. There are those who would still have you believe that the order to desegregate could be resisted successfully. The legislature's failure to keep the
164 165
Orleans Parish schools open on a segregated basis in spite of its frenzied efforts and the facts of the situation in New Orleans should be sufficient to prove the falsity of this claim. True, the white peo ple of Baton Rouge might keep their children at home rather than permit them to attend schools at which negroes would be present . . . but this would be a terrible price to pay .... For the price would be ignorance.
There is no reasonable hope that private school facilities could be expanded or created in sufficient time, even if their most probable
lack of quality were to be ignored. Nor would;resistance help in any way to prepare persons of either race to cope with a situation which is
sure to come in spite of all local resistance, a situation which re
quires an increase in mutual understanding and an increase in mutual
respect.
It is with these thoughts in mind that we the people of Baton
Rouge should examine our own consciences with regard to the action we
should take in the days to come. Let us resolve not to succumb to the
advice or threats of those who would prefer to see our children without
educational facilities and to see our peace give way to civil disorder
rather than act in charity and in justice under law. Let us determine
to act as becomes reasonable and law abiding men and women and to urge
our school board and other public officials to do likewise. February 10, 1961
Yesterday the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Federal District Court ordering discon- # tinuance of segregation in the public schools of East Baton Rouge
Parish.
Regardless of our preferences or prejudices, we must all re cognize that this judgment will most certainly be affirmed by the Su preme Court of the United States if appealed. Whether it is appealed or not, it is a certainty that the Parish School Board will be ordered to begin the desegregation of the public schools not later than September of this year. It would seem, therefore, that the East
Baton Rouge Parish School Board should proceed immediately to devise a plan which will at once honestly comply with the law and minimize the difficulties which might result from a poor plan or one offered too late to be understood by the people.
It is reasonable to believe that the majority of white people in this parish would much prefer to have an orderly and gradual desegre gation of our schools than suffer the irreparable damage which has been worked on the people of Orleans Parish. We assume that the majority of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board are ready to show their willingness to respect the law and work earnestly toward its fulfill ment for the common good. There is reason to hope that our state officials have come to understand the futility of their attempts to preserve segregated schools in Orleans Parish and that they will not
166 interfere with the efforts of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board to do what must be done with dignity and minimum disturbance. Of course there will always be the minority who will seek to pressure and to threaten the school board and those who would cooperate with them. We urge our local law enforcement officers to be vigilant and forceful so as to prevent unlawful interference with the Parish School Board or with the operation of or attendance at any school which might be desegregated.
Certainly this station will always do whatever it can to make the school board's plans known and understood and whatever else might be of utility toward a peaceful transition to the new school system. February 16, 1961
Certainly, there is no one in East Baton Rouge Parish tonight
who doubts the real purpose of House Bill Number 6 . . . authored by
Mr. A. T. Sanders, one of the representatives from East Baton Rouge
Parish.
Mr. Sanders' bill enlarges the Parish School Board from its
present 7 members to a total of 11 members, by providing for the imme
diate appointment of 4 new members by the Governor of the State . . .
These new members to serve until the next Congressional election in
1962 . . . at which time the people of East Baton Rouge Parish will
have their first chance to vote on their new school board representa
tives. In this matter, Mr. Sanders certainly serves Governor Davis
well . . . but how well he serves the people who elected him to the.
Legislature is subject to serious question . . . For the purpose of
Mr. Sanders' bill is to pack the Parish School Board with members not
responsive to the will of the people of East Baton Rouge, but who will
be completely subservient to and at the beck and call of those whose
out-of-date political philosophy would prefer to see the schools
closed rather than accept a court order that will probably require some
type of integration in the public schools. For the people of this
parish to be deprived of the services of a democratically elected
school board and to have our children deprived of the right to educa
tion is a terrible price for the people of this parish to have to pay in
order to gratify the politically petrified of this state . . . for the
168 year is not 1861, it is 1961 . . . one century later than some would like to believe. February 17, 1961
It Is now time that everyone takes a hard, cold look at the present administration of this state — with regard to where it is
leading the people of Louisiana — for there are many basic tenets of
justice and democracy that are being deliberately violated while the
administration tends the fires of segregation.
Legislators who certainly know better are consenting to legis
lation that would do credit to Hitler's Germany at the height of its
infamy. As great a shame is the reluctance of many of the moral
leaders of the people to speak out publicly against these demagogic
acts.
The Legislature is considering and it seems will surely pass
two legislative acts that make it both legal and profitable to inform
on anyone who chooses to send their children to schools that might be
operating under proper court orders ordering desegregation of these
schools.
These laws will make it possible to literally starve a family
to death . . . to deny a family public utilities . . . and, in fact,
to deny a family the protection of the law and the courts. The control
of parents over their children would be replaced by a reign of authority
based on informers . . . husband against wife . . . father against
son . . . mother against daughter . . . and, neighbor against neighbor.
The proponents of these measures may attempt to say such is not
the intention of the legislative acts. If this is so . . . then,
Governor Davis and Messrs. Fields, Lehmann and Triche, the authors of
170 the acts . . . should state the intention of this emergency legislation.
This station is most willing to provide adequate free time to
the authors of these acts to clarify the content and purpose of these measures. February 20, 1961
The Legislature has now passed House Bill Number 6 . . . the legislative act that packs the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board.
If this act is tested in Federal Court, as it undoubtedly will be, a fairly certain estimate of the outcome of the test can be made on the basis of immediate past history of similar legislation.
In recent weeks the Louisiana Legislature has passed several acts and resolutions in its numerous attempts to do away with the
Orleans Parish School Board . . . to remove its members and even its attorney.
All of these efforts have been totally unsuccessful . . . and all have been declared to violate the United States Constitution.
In dealing with the legislative action aimed at the Orleans
Parish School Board . . . the United States District Court did not deal with each act or resolution in isolated context. Instead, it looked realistically at the entire bundle of laws . . . and found that the sole object of every measure adopted at that particular extra ses sion was to preserve a system of segregated public schools in defiance of the mandate of the United States Supreme Court.
However innocent these acts were on their face . . . the court
saw them to be part and parcel Of the segregation package of the legis
lature .
Any legal artifice . . . however cleverly contrived . . . which would circumvent the Supreme Court ruling and others predicated on it
172 173 was declared to be unconstitutional. The court said that acts generally lawful may become unlawful when done to accomplish what it found to be an unlawful end . . .
Although House Bill Number 6 says nothing about maintaining segregated public schools, its author has publicly stated that the mea sure would be needed when the Federal Court issues an order integrating
East Baton Rouge Parish schools.
The United States District Court which invalidated all the legis lative action dealing with the Orleans Parish School Board is the same court that will initially determine the constitutional validity of House
Bill Number 6.
When it looks to the avowed purpose of the act . . . and the other acts being considered . . . and of the entire special session . . . it will probably have little difficulty following the reasoning of the
New Orleans decision and declaring the East Baton Rouge Parish School
Board "Packing" Act unconstitutional. APPENDIX B CLASSIFICATION: (ASK FOR THIS INFORMATION AFTER YOU HnVE FINISHED THE INTERVIEW, 1 1 1 70.SEX: ( 1 )MALE 72.-tGE:( 1)19-25 73. EDUCATION ( 1)Over k yr. Col ( l) ( 2)FEMALE ( 2)26-32 OF HEAD ( 2)College grad. ( 2j 3)33-^0 OF HOUSE ( 3)Some College ( 3, 71.RACE( l)WHITE { 4Kl-^7 ( ^)Hi School Grad ( k, ( 2)N/WHITE ( 5)^8-55 ( 5)Some Hi Schoo ( 5.- 6)55 & up ( 6)Finish Gr. 7 or fiv 6. ( 7)Less than 7 yrs. (, 7 75. OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSE:
START HERE: A. (PRESENT CARD "A") Most people feel there are some changes they would like to make in the kinds of programs offered on television. We would like you to imagine that you had complete control over the programs offered by your favorite station and then examine the list below. Look at each type of program on the list and tell us if you would ADD more of this type of program, REDUCE the number already offered, or would keep just about the same number on the air. Please think of this in terms of what YOU would prefer - not what you think the most people would enjoy. DON'T D REDUCESAME KNOW Col. 1. 1). ....( 2).... 3)... ..( k) 2 . Information & documentary shows..( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( V 3. Detective programs...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( k) 4. 1). ....( 2).... .( ' 3)... ..( V 5. 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( M 6. Teen-age dance shows...... ( I). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( *0 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( k) 8. Play-by-play sports ...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( 4) 9. Feature length movies...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( *0 10. Religious programs...... •••( 1). .( 3)... ..( *0 11. Local programs...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( *0 12. Children's programs...... ( 1). ....(2).... .( 3)... ..( *0 13. Political broadcasts ...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( V Ik. Educational programs...... ( l)1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( *0 15. Quiz programs...... ( 1). ....( 2).... .( 3).-. ..( k) 1-6. "Situation" comedy...... ( 1).l), ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( H 17. Comedy variety...... ( 1). .( 3)... ..( 'O
18. 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( k)
19. 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( V
20. 1). ....( 2).... .( 3)... ..( k)
B. (PRESENT CARD "B") This is another list of possible types of television pro grams. Will you please check over this list and tell us whether or not you t ... think you would watch these programs REGULARLY if they were offered at a conven ient time for you. Select as many as you wish, but please choose only those you would watch regularly - say, twice a month if they were offered each week, two or three days a week if they were offered every day. ( 2l) Lo'eal self-expression ( 28) Agricultural programs ( 22) Local talent ( 29) News 23 Children ( 30) Weather and market reports 2*0 Religion ( 31) Sports 25) Education ( 32) Service to minority groups 26 Public affairs ( 33) Entertainment 27) Political broadcasts ( 3*f) Editorials by station owners 175 176 C, One of the types of program listed in the last question was "Editorials by station owners." Do you think the owner of a radio or a television station has the right to use his station to present his own personal views on contro versial issues on the air?
Col. 35 ( 1 ) YES ( 2 ) NO ( 3 ) DON»T KNOW
(IP THE ANSWER IS "YES" OR A6K 9*9 fOLLOWING QUESTION)
( 36 ) Why do you feel this way?______( 37 ) • ill D. If he does present his own personal views, do you think he is obligated to make FREE time available to anyone who wants to answer or take an opposing poin* of view? Col. 40 ( 1 ) YES ( 2 ) NO ( 3 ) DON'T KNOW
(IP "YES", ASK THE FOLLOWING})
Do you think he is obligated to seek out the opposing point of view and see to it that this point of view is expressed on the air?
Col. 4l ( 1 ) YES ( 2 ) NO ( 3 ) DON'T KNOW
E. Have you heard of anyone editorializing on the air in this way in the last six months? Col. 42 ( 1 ) YES ( 2 ) NO
(IP THE ANSWER TO "E" IS NO, SKIP TO #12. IP THE ANSWER IS YES, ASK ALL OP THE FOLLOWING) 1. Have you personally heard any of these editorials? Col. 43 ( 1 ) YES ( 2 ) NO ( 3 ) DON'T KNOW
2. On what stations were they broadcast? (44) WBRZ Ch. 2 (4-8) WAIL (53) WJBO (57)______(45) WAFB-TV - Ch. 9 (49) WIBR (5k) WDSU (46) WDSU-TV - Ch. 6 (50) WLCS (55) DON'T KNOW (58)______(51) WXOK (47) (52) WYNK (56)______(59)______
3. What was the name of the person doing the editorializing? ( 60 ) . ,
4. How did you first hear of these editorials?______( 61 ) ( 62 ) _ ; ; ;______
5* Have you talked with anyone about them?
Col. 63: (l) Immediate family only Col. 64 (l) 1 or 2 close friends (2) Other relatives as well (2) 3 to 5 close friends (3) More than 5 close friends Col. 65: (l) 1 or 2 casual friends Col. 66:(l) 1 or 2 strangers '2) 3 to 5 casual friends (2) 3 to 5 strangers ,3) More than 5 casual friends (3) More than 5 strangers 6. What did the man talk about in the editorials you heard?
(TRY FOR SPECIFIC ANSWERS HERE - NOT SIMPLY "SEGREGATION", BUT A MORE DETAILED ANSWER. AS THE PERSON MENTIONS EACH ISSUE, ASK ALSO:)
Do you agree with this point of view? (THE ANSWER TO THIS GOES IN THIS COLUMN)
AFTER THE PERSON HAS TOLD YOU WHAT HE REMEMBERS, GIVE HIM CARD "D" & ASK:)
7. Recently Mr. Douglas Manship, the owner of WBR2 - Channel 2, has editoria lized on the following issues. Do you remember hearing him speak about any of these issues on the air?
l) ( 2) ( 3} (AS YOU DID IN QUESTION 6 ABOVE, TRY TO DETERMINE M ( 5) ( 6) WHAT THE RESPONDENT THINKS WAS SAID ON EACH ISSUE 7) ( 8) ( 9) HE REMEMBERS AND WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH THE 10) ( 11) ( 12) POINT OF VIEW EXPRESSED.) ( 15 178 8. Did. any of the editorials you heard stand out in your mind as being more effective than the rest? If so, would you identify them, please? \
( 51) ( 52)______
9. What was there about it (them) that made it (them) more effective? (53) ( 5*0______;______;______
10. Do you think these editorials by a station owner should be continued? Col. 55 ( 1) YES ( 2) NO ( 5) DON'T KNOW (IP THE ANSWER IS "YES" OR "NO", ASK THE FOLLOWING) Why do you feel this way? ______( 56 ( 57 ( 58)......
11. Assuming these editorials are to continue, do you have any suggestions as to how these editorials could be made more effective?
(59) ( 60) ______( 61) ( 62) _
12. Are there any specific subjects which you feel should not be discussed by a station owner who editorializes on the air? ( 65) ( 6*0______
( 65) ( 66) ; ;______
15. For purposes of classification only, would you please tell us what state you were born in?
( 67)______• • __
lA. Approximately how long have you lived in the South?
( 68)_ _
15. Do you consider yourself "A Southerner?" Col. 69 ( 1) YES ( 2) NO ( 5) DON'T KNOW
16. To allow us to check on the efficiency of our interviewers, will you please tell us your telephone number? APPENDIX C Program Preference Information
To get an estimate of what the public would consider an "ideal" television program schedule, each respondent was given a list which in
cluded examples of seventeen different types of television program and
asked the following question:
Most people feel there are some changes they would like to make in the kinds of program offered on television. We would like you to imagine that you had complete control over the pro grams offered by your favorite station and then examine the list below. Look at each type of program on the list and tell us if you would ADD more of this type of program, REDUCE the number already offered, or would keep just about the same number on the air. Please think of this in terms of what YOU would prefer -- not what you think the most people would enjoy.
The overall response to this question is summarized in Table 26.
The information in Table 26 includes the response gathered from
all respondents -- without reference to sex, age, race, or class. From
this we can see that over 40% of the sample said they would add music,
longer dramatic programs, religious broadcasts, and educational programs.
Over 40% would reduce the number of Westerns only -- but over 30% would
reduce the number of detective programs, teen-age dance shows, and
political broadcasts as well. More than 40% would keep the same number
of news programs,, detective shows, sports broadcasts, feature length
movies, local programs, children's programs, political broadcasts, quiz
shows, situation comedies, and comety-variety shows.
It can be seen that the majority of the people questioned would
like to tinker with existing schedules -- news was the only program type
180 181
TABLE 26
PERCENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS WISHING TO ADD. REDUCE OR KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF SEVENTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAM
(N - 1414) Type of Program Add Reduce Same D.K.
1. News 31.9% 3.2% 62.6% 2.3% 2. Information and documentary 32.6 9.3 38.3 19.8 3. Detective programs 24.5 31.1 40.2 4.2 4. Westerns 21.9 41.3 34.5 2.3 5. Music 40.2 17.6 37.8 4.4 6. Teen-age dance shows 16.8 34.1 34.7 14.4 7. 60-90 minute dramatic programs 47.0 11.6 36.3 5.1 7 8. Play-by-play sports 31.8 18.2 41.7 8.3 9. Feature length motion pictures 33.2 10.2 45.2 11.4 10.Religious programs 44.8 9.1 36.7 9.4 11.Local programs 36.8 12.7 41.2 9.3 12.Children1s programs 30.8 14.4 45.6 9.2 13.Political broadcasts 20.5 35.1 40.1 4.3 14.Educational programs 56.9 4.5 29.1 9.5 15.Quiz programs 24.3 27.4 44.9 3.4 1 6 ."Situation" comedy programs 34.4 15.8 45.5 4.3 17.Comedy variety 31.2 17.2 45.4 6.2
which more than half of the respondents would keep the same. It seems evident, though, that most feel the solution to any programming problems is an increase in their favorite programs. In only five of the seventeen cases did more respondents feel they would reduce rather than atjfi to the number of programs on the air.
In the F.C.C. memo of July 29th the Commission listed fourteen types of program which they felt were essential to a balanced program schedule.These were listed -- with examples — on a second card which also was given each respondent. The following question was then asked:
*Supra., p . 14. 182
This Is another list of possible types of television pro gram. Will you please check over this list and tell us whether or not you think you would watch these programs regularly if they were offered at a convenient time for you. Select as many as you wish, but please choose only those you would watch regularly -- say twice a month if they were offered every week, two or three days a week if they were offered every day.
The data gathered from this question is summarized in Table 27.
TABLE 27
PERCENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS STATING THEY WOULD OR WOULD NOT REGULARLY WATCH FOURTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF TELEVISION PROGRAM
(N - 1414) Type of Program Yes No
1. Local Self-expression...... 54.9% 2. Showcase for local talent...... 52.0 48.0 - 3. Children's programs...... 71.1 4. Religious broadcasts ...... 43.5 5. Educational broadcasts ...... 62.6 37.4 6. Public Affairs broadcasts...... 53.8 46.2 7. Political broadcasts ...... 34.2 65.8 8. Agricultural broadcasts...... 22.1 77.9 9. News broadcasts...... 84.0 16.0 10.Weather forecasts...... 38.3 11.Sports broadcasts...... 43.1 12.Expression of minority views ...... 24.0 76.0 13.Entertainment programs ...... 26.2 14.Editorials by station owners . . . . 64.6
This indicates that these programs would meet with varied response. Only
22% of the respondents would watch agricultural broadcasts and only 24% would watch programs devoted to the expression of minority views. 29% would regularly look at children's programs (compared with the 30% who
indicated above they would increase their numbers).
In answering the first question, 60% of those interviewed said
they would either increase the number of political broadcasts or at 183 least keep the same number. Only 34% feel they would watch these regu larly, however.
Programs in which the public would be given the opportunity to express its views on the air seemed to interest only 45% of the sample.
Only 35% said they would watch editorials by station owners regularly.
Over half the sample were willing to watch the other eight program types, but the fact that over 60% of the people indicate they will not listen to five of the fourteen listed by the commission throws some doubt on the value of this list as a guide to commercially successful programming. APPENDIX D CARD "A" Most people feel there are changes they would like to make in the programs offered on television. We would like you to imagine you had complete control over the programs offered by your favorite station and then examine the list below. Look at each type of program on the list and tell us if you would ADD more of this type of program, REDUCE the number already offered, or would keep the number on the air just about the same. Please think of this in terms of what YOU would prefer -- not just what you think the most people would enjoy. 1. News programs (Like Douglas Edwards or Your Esso Reporter) 2. Information and documentary programs (Like Twentieth Century or The Valiant Years) 3. Detective programs (Like The Detectives or 77, Sunset Strip) 4. Western programs (Like Wagon Train or Gunsmoke) 5. Music programs (Like Lawrence Welk or Sing Along With Mitch) 6. Teen-age Dance Programs (Like Bandstand or Saturday Prom) 7. 60-90 minute dramatic shows (Like Playhouse 90 or United States Steel Hour) 8. Play-by-play sports (Professional basketball, etc. or college games) 9. Feature length movies (Like Movie Masterpieces, or The Late Show) 10. Religious programs (Like Lamp Unto my Feet or The Catholic Hour) 11. Local programs (Like Mid-day in Louisiana or the L.S.U. Chorus) 12. Children's programs (Like Huckleberry Hound or Buckskin Bill) 13. Political broadcasts (Like the speeches of Gov. Davis or The Great Debates) 14. Educational programs (Like Pursuit of Learning or Continental Classroom) 15. Quiz programs (Like The Groucho Marx Show or The College Bowl) 16. "Situation" Comedy (Like Andy Griffith or Danny Thomas) 17. Comedy Variety (Like the Jack Paar or Bob Hope shows) 18. Other (Tell your interviewer) c a r d "Bu This is another list of possible types of television programs. Will you please check over this list and tell us whether or not you think you would watch these programs regularly if they were offered at convenient times for you. Select as many as you wish, but please choose only those you would watch regularly — say twice a month if they were offered each week, two or three days a week if they were offered every day. 1. Local self-expression on important issues (A local version of Town Meeting of the Air) 2. Development and use of local talent (Programs featuring local talent) 3. Programs for children (Deputy Dawg. Rocket J. Squirrel, etc.) 4. Religious Programs (Services from local churches, etc.) 5. Educational programs (Pursuit of Learning♦ Continental Classroom) 6. Public Affairs programs (Coverage of the special sessions, etc.) 7. Political programs (Speeches by Gov. Davis, campaign speeches) 8. Agricultural reports (Today on the Farm, etc.) 9. News (Night Desk. Douglas Edwards, etc.) 10. Weather and Market reports (Following television news, etc.) 11. Play-by-play sports (L.S.U. Football, professional golf, etc.) 12. Service to minority groups (Of interest to small groups - foreigners, etc. 13. Entertainment (Popular westerns, mysteries, variety, etc.) 14. Editorials by station owners (In which owners express their own opinions) CARD "C" Recently Mr. Douglas Manshlp, the owner of WBRZ, Channel 2, has editorialized on the fol lowing issues. Do you remember hearing him speak about any of the following issues on the air?
1. The secrecy about the original call for a > special session of the legislature. 2. The effect of the speeches and actions of the legislators on the people of Louisiana. 3. The amount of information given to the repre sentatives from New Orleans about the plans of the legislature. 4. The number of people who are contacting their representatives about their feelings on the segregation-integration issue. 5. The strength of state law compared with the strength of decisions of Federal Courts. 6. The proposed 1% increase in sales tax. 7. The censure by the legislature of the Univer sity professor who wrote several legislators. 8. The proposed investigation of professors at L. S. U. 9. The increasing number of state Civil Service employees. 10. The plans to interpose the authority of the state between the Federal Government and the people of Louisiana. 11. The Federal Court order to integrate the schools in East Baton Rouge Parish. 12. The plans to increase the size of the Baton Rouge School Board. 13. The proposed law making it a crime to urge parents to send their children to integrated schools and giving the fines to informers. CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION
AGE EDUCATION
1. 19-25 1. Over four (4) years of college
2. 26-32 2. Graduate of a four year college
3. 33-40 3. Some college, didn't graduate
4. 41-47 4. High School Graduate
5. 48-55 5. Some High School, didn't graduate
6. 55 or over 6. Finished 7th or 8th grade
7. Less than 7 years of school APPENDIX E THE TWO FACTOR INDEX OF SOCIAL POSITION2
I. Introduction.
The Two Factor Index of Social Position was developed to meet the
need for an objective, easily applicable procedure to estimate the
positions individuals occupy in the status structure of our society.
Its development was dependent both upon detailed knowledge of the
social structure, and procedures social scientists have used to de
lineate class position. It is premised upon three assumptions: (1)
the existence of a status structure in the society; (2) positions
in this structure are determined mainly by a few commonly accepted
symbolic characteristics; and (3) the characteristics symbolic of
status may be scaled and combined by the use of statistical pro
cedures so that a researcher can quickly, reliably, and meaning
fully stratify the population under study.
Occupation and education are the two factors utilized to deter
mine social position. Occupation is presumed to reflect the skill
and power individuals possess as they perform the many maintenance
functions in the society. Education is believed to reflect not only
knowledge, but also cultural tastes. The proper combination of these
factors by the use of statistical techniques enable a researcher to
determine within approximate limits the social position an individual
occupies in the status structure of our society.
2 August B. Hollingshead, Two Factor Index of Social Position. (New Haven: By the author, 1957).
190 191
II. The Scale Scores.
To determine the social position of an individual or of a household two items are essential: (1) the precise occupational role the head of the household performs in the economy; and (2) the amount of formal schooling he has received. Each of these factors are then scaled accord ing to the following system of scores.
A. The Occupational Scale.
1. Higher Executives. Proprietors of Large Concerns, and Major Professionals. a. Higher Executives Bank Presidents; Vice Presidents Military, Commissioned Officers, Judges (Superior Courts) Major and above, Officials of the Large Businesses, e.g., Directors, Executive Branch of Government, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Federal, State, Local, e.g., Assistant Vice Presidents, Mayor, City Manager, City Plan Executive Secretary, Director, Internal Revenue Treasurer. Directors. Research Directors, Large Firms b. Large Proprietors (Value over $100,0001). Brokers Dairy Owners Contractors Lumber Dealers
c. Major Professionals Accountants (C.P.A.) Economists Actuaries Engineers (College Grad.) Agronomists Foresters Architects Geologists Artists, Portrait Lawyers Astronomers Metallurgists Auditors Physicians Bacteriologists Physicists, Research Chemical Engineers Psychologists, Practicing Chemists Symphony Conductor Clergyman (Professionally Trained) Teachers, University, College Dentists Veterinarians (Veterinary Surgeons)
*The value of businesses is based upon the rating of financial strength in Dun and Bradstreet1s Manual.
* 192
2. Business Managers. Proprietors of Medium Sized Businesses, and Lesser Professionals.
a. Business Managers in Large Concerns. Advertising Directors Office Managers Branch Managers Personnel Managers Brokerage Salesmen Police Chief; Sheriff District Managers Postmaster Executive Assistants Production Managers Executive Managers, Govt. Officials, Sales Engineers minor, e.g., Internal Revenue Agents Sales Managers, National Concerns Farm Managers Sales Managers (Over $100,000)
b. Proprietors of Medium Businesses (Value $35,000-$100,000) Advertising Owners (-$100,000) Manufacturer's Representatives Clothing Store Owners (-$100,000) Poultry Business (-$100,000) Contractors (-$100,000) Purchasing Managers Express Company Owners (-$100,000) Real Estate Brokers (-$100,000) Fruits, Wholesale (-$100,000) Rug Business (-$100,000) Furniture Business (-$100,000) Store Owners (-$100,000) Jewelers (-$100,000) Theater Owners (-$100,000) Labor Relations Consultants
c. Lesser Professionals Accountants (Not C.P.A.) Military, Commissioned Officers, Chiropodists Lts., Captains Chiropractors Musicians (symphony orchestra) Correction Officers Nurses Director of Community House Opticians Engineers (Not College Grad.) Pharmacists Finance Writers Public Health Officers (M.P.H.) Health Educators Research Assistants, University Librarians (Full-time) Social Workers Teachers (elementary and High)
3. Administrative Personnel. Small Independent Businesses, and Minor Professionals.
a. Administrative Personnel Advertising Agents Section Heads, Federal, State, and Chief Clerks Local Government Offices Credit Managers Section Heads, Large Businesses Insurance Agents and Industries Managers, Department Stores Service Managers Passenger Agents--R.R. Shop Managers Private Secretaries Store Managers (Chain) Purchasing Agents Traffic Managers Sales Representatives b. Small Business Owners ($6.000-$35,000) Art Gallery Cigarette Machines Auto Accessories Cleaning Shops Awnings Clothing Bakery Coal Businesses Beauty Shop Convalescent Homes Boatyard Decorating Brokerage, Insurance Dog Supplies Car Dealers Dry Goods Cattle Dealers Engraving Business Feed Monuments Finance Co., Local Package Store (liquor) Fire Extinguishers Painting Contracting 5 6c 10 Plumbing Florist Poultry Producers Food Equipment Publicity & Public Relations Food Products Real Estate Foundry Records and Radios Funeral Directors Restaurant Furniture Roofing Contractor Garage Shoe Gas Station Signs Glassware Tavern Grocery-General Taxi Company Hotel Proprietors Tire Shop Inst, of Music Trucking Jewelry Trucks and Tractors Machinery Brokers Upholstery Manufacturing Wholesale Outlets Window Shades
c. Semi-Professionals Actors and Showmen Morticians Army M/Sgt; Navy C.P.O. Oral Hygienists Artists, Commercial Photographers Appraisers (Estimators) Physio-therapists Clergymen (Not professionally Piano Teachers trained) Radio, T.V. Announcers Concern Managers Reporters, Court Deputy Sheriffs Reporters, Newspaper Dispatchers, R.R. Train Surveyors Interior Decorators Title Searchers Interpreters, Court Tool Designers Laboratory Assistants Travel Agents Landscape Planners Yard Masters, R.R.
d. Farmers Farm Owners ($25,000-35,000) 4. Clerical and Sales Workers. Technicians, and Owners of Little Businesses. (Value under $6,000)
a. Clerical and Sales Workers Bank Clerks and Tellers Factory Storekeeper Bill Collectors Factory Supervisor Bookkeepers Post Office Clerks Business Machine Operators, Route Managers Offices Sales Clerks Claims Examiners Shipping Clerks Clerical or Stenographic Supervisors, Utilities, Factories Conductors, R.R. Toll Station Supervisors Employment Interviewers Warehouse Clerks
b. Technicians Dental Technicians Operators, P.B.X. Draftsmen Proofreaders Driving Teachers Safety Supervisors Expeditor, Factory Supervisors of Maintenance Experimental Tester Technical Assistants Instructors, Telephone Co., Factory Telephone Co. Supervisors Inspectors, Weights, Sanitary Timekeepers Inspectors, R.R., Factory Tower Operators, R.R. Investigators Truck Dispatchers Laboratory Technicians Window Trimmers (Store) Locomotive Engineers
c. Owners of Little Businesses. Flower Shop ($3,000-$6,000) Newsstand ($3,000-$6,000) Tailor Shop ($3,000-$6,000)
d. Farmers. Owners ($10,000-$20,000)
5. Skilled Manual Employees. Auto Body Repairers Glassblowers Bakers Glaziers Barbers Gunsmiths Blacksmiths Gauge Makers Bookbinders Hair Stylists Boilermakers Heat Treaters Brakemen, R.R. Horticulturists Brewers Lineman, Utility Bulldozer Operators Linoleum Layers (Trained) Butchers Linotype Operators Cabinet Makers Lithographers Carpenters Locksmiths Casters (Founders) Loom Fixers Cement Finishers Machinists (Trained) Cheese Makers Maintenance Foreman 195
5. Skilled Manual Employees (Continued) Chefs Installers, Electrical Appliances Compositors Masons Diemakers Masseurs Diesel Engine Repair & Maintenance Mechanics (Trained) (Trained) Millwrights Diesel Shovel Operators Moulders (Trained) Electricians Painters Electrotypists Paperhangers Engravers Patrolmen, R.R. Exterminators Pattern and Model Makers Fitters, Gas, Steam Piano Builders Firemen, City Piano Tuners Firemen, R.R. Plumbers Foremen, Construction, Dairy Policemen, City Gardeners, Landscape (Trained) Postmen Printers Tailors (Trained) Radio, T.V., Maintenance Teletyjpe Operators Repairmen, Home Appliances Toolmakers Rope Splicers Track Supervisors, R.R. Sheetmetal Workers (Trained) Tractor-Trailor Trans. Shipsmiths Typographers Shoe Repairmen (Trained) Upholsterers (Trained) Stationary Engineers (Licensed) Watchmakers Stewards, Club Weavers Switchmen, R.R. Welders Yard Supervisors, R.R.
Small Farmers Owners (under ($10,000) Tenants who own farm equipment
6. Machine Operators and Semi-Skilled Employees. Aides, Hospital Practical Nurses Apprentices, Electricians, Printers, Pressers, Clothipg Steamfitters, Toolmakers Pump Operators Assembly Line Workers Receivers and Checkers Bartenders Roofers Bingo Tenders Set-up Men, Factories Building Superintendents (Cust.) Shapers Bus Drivers Signalmen, R.R. Checkers Solderers, Factory Coin Machine Fillers Sprayers, Paint Cooks, Short Order Steelworkers (Not Skilled) Delivery Men Stranders, Wire Machines Dressmakers, Machine Strippers, Rubber Factory Elevator Operators Taxi Drivers Enlisted Men, Military Services Testers Filers, Benders, Buffers, Timers Foundry Workers Tire Moulders Garage and Gas Station Assistants Trainmen, R.R. 196
6. Machine Operators and Semi-Skilled Employees (Continued) Greenhouse Workers Truck Drivers, General Guards, Doorkeepers, Watchmen Waiters-Waitresses ("Better Places") Hairdressers Weighers Housekeepers Welders, Spot Meat Cutters and Packers Winders, Machine Meter Readers Wiredrawers, Machine Operators, Factory Machines Wine Bottlers Oiler, R.R. Wood Workers, Machine Wrappers, Stores and Factories
Farmers Smaller Tenants who own little equipment.
7. Unskilled Employees. Amusement Park Workers (Bowling Ash Removers Alleys, Pool Rooms) Attendants, Parking Lots Cafeteria Workers Laundry Workers Car Cleaners, R.R. Messengers Car Helpers, R.R. Platform Men, R.R. Carriers, Coal Peddlers Countermen Porters Dairy Workers Roofer's Helpers Deck Hands Shirt Folders Domestics Shoe Shiners Farm Helpers Sorters, Rag and Salvage Fishermen (Clam Diggers) Stagehands Freight Handlers Stevedores Garbage Collectors Stock Handlers Grave Diggers Street Cleaners Hod Carriers Unskilled Factory Workers Hog Killers Truckmen, R.R. Hospital Workers, Unspecified Waitresses— "Hash Houses" Hostlers, R.R. Washers, Cars Janitors, Sweepers Window Cleaners Laborers, Construction Woodchoppers Laborers, Unspecified Relief, Public, Private
Unemployed (No Occupation)
Farmers Share Croppers APPENDIX F INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERVIEWERS 198 REASON FOR THESE INSTRUCTIONS
These instructions have been written for just one reason; to make this assignment go as smoothly and as easily for you as possible. Read them until you understand them and refer to them as often as necessary. Here you will find the answer to just about any question that may arise concerning this survey. The success or failure of your work will depend on how thoroughly you read and understand these instructions.
PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY
This survey is designed to find out how the people of Baton Rouge feel about the programming of the television stations here. It is also designed to test the reaction of the public to a type of programming the Federal Communica tions Commission is encouraging all stations to schedule - editorials by station owners. We are fortunate to live in a community in which a station owner is actually doing this and the Speech Department is quite interested in determining what reactions they are causing.
Please remember, though, that you are not to mention this second purpose to any of the people you interview - at any point in the interview. We want to find out how many people are actually aware of the editorials, if they know who is doing the editorialising, and on what station - obviously we can't do this if we reveal the information at any time during the interview.
Remember, then, that if you are asked the purpose of the survey tell only that it is to find out how the people of 3aton Rouge feel about the pro gramming of local TV stations. If they draw any other conclusions, don't confirm or deny - turn the question aside and get back to the questionnaire.
IMPARTIALITY
You MUST be COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL at all_times. If you, yourself, have any feelings about any of the questions asked, you must not reveal them to your respondents. If they know how you feel, this could influence their answers which would make the survey results useless. Show no reaction to their answers, we simply want to learn, accurately and impartially, the true feelings of your respondents.
WHERE TO INTERVIEW
In the envelope which contains these instructions you will find a map of Baton Rouge, On this map you will find an area of the city outlined in red. Within this area you will find an intersection of two streets marked with an "X". This "X" is to be your starting point,
Here's what to do:
1. Go to the starting point marked by an "X" on your map. This will be the intersection of two streets.
2. When you get to your starting point, face North on the North-South street and start going around the block in a clock-wise direction. Call on EVERY DWELLING UNIT (i.e. house, apartment, etc.) which you come to until you have finished your assigned quota. If an apart ment house falls within your assigned route, start interviewing on the bottom floor and work up. In an apartment house, call on each individual apartment in turn. 199
5. If you cannot obtain an interview in some house because no adult is is at home or for some other reason, go on to the next one. Continue until you have your quota of completed interviews.
4. If there are not enough houses in your block to fill your quota, go around the next block nearest your starting point, always going in a clockwise direction. If this second block does not provide enough interviews to complete;, your quota, proceed around another block next to your assigned block. Continue in this manner around the blocks nearest to your assigned block until you have filled your quota. As you move into different blocks, always check your map and be sure you are not interviewing on a street which is outside of the area outlined in red - for purposes of this study, streets on which the red lines are drawn are considered outside the area.
5. Be sure to include houses and apartments, in alleys, lanes, courts, etc. - and houses set well back from the street. This should NOT change your over-all clock-wi3e movement around your block.
That's all there is to it. Just go to your starting point. Proceed from the starting point in a clock-wise direction around your block. Call for an interview in each dwelling unit - house or apartment - until you have filled your quota.
WHOM TO INTERVIEW
Interview only adults (aged 19 or over) who live in your assigned block or area. On the preliminary instruction sheet you will find the exact number of men or women you are to interview. Be sure to fill this assigned quota.
Do not interview more than one person in any household.
WHEN TO INTERVIEW
If you are interviewing WOMEN you may interview at any time - morning, afternoon, or evening - although the afternoon will probably be the most pro ductive.
If you are interviewing MEN you should not start interviewing before 4*00 on weekdays. On weekends, you may interview at any time.
TIME LIMIT
If at all possible, this assignment must be completed within 7 days aftei you receive it. If, for some urgent reason, you find it impossible to complete your assignment on time, contact Mr. Pennybacker immediately. He will tell you whether or not it will be possible to extend your deadline. Anyone who is not able to complete his assignment, without a good reason, will not be eligible for the cash bonuses which will be given those who interview the greatest number of people.
PAYMENT
There are several market or consumer research organizations in this country who, from time to time, find it necessary to search for reasonably experienced people to do some interviewing for them on a part time basis. These firms are able to pay considerably more than we are and tais often becomes a valuable source of extra income. To make it possible for you to tap this source, should the occasion arise in the future, all interviewers whom we 200 judge to have done a successful job will be given a letter to this effect, indicating the time you worked and the number of useable interviews you completed.
This is not to say, however, that we will be unable to pay you anything for the work you do here. The basic rate for all interviewers will be 200 an interview. However, a bonus of $25.00 will be given to the person who completef the greatest number of useable interviews. $15.00 will be given the person who completes the next highest number of interviews, and there will be six $10.00 bonuses for the next six highest number of useable interviews returned.
ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please study the following points with a copy of the questionnaire in your hand. It is very important that you be entirely familiar with the questionnaire and the procedure before you conduct your first interview.
Classification* This information is placed at the top of the first page for the convenience of the people who will process this information after you have gathered it. Ask for the information only after you have finished the interview.
70s & 71* These two items can be checked without asking any questions.
72s AGE* Most people will not object to giving their age, and what objection there may be further minimized by allowing them to ohoose age groups within which their true age lies. Hand the person the classification card, then, and ask him to choose the age group that includes him. To reduce shyness even further, ask him to identify the group by number alone. You will find that many people will just give you their age when you start this procedure - but you must never ask for their age directly. Always ask for the information in the way outlined above.
73* EDUCATION OF HEAD OF HOUSEs If you are interviewing a man who is the head of the house, this question presents few problems. Hand him the card as you did above and ask him to identify the proper education group by number. Again, never ask for this infor mation directly. Always present the card and ask the respondent to select the proper group by number.
If you are interviewing a person who is not the head of a household - you will want two items of information. Ask her first to indicate the education group which includes the head of the house - often the husband. Check this information in the first column - to the left of the education groups.
7*f EDUCATION OF OTHER THfaM HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD: Use this column to record the education group which includes the person you are inter viewing who is not the head of a household. As you can see, then, this column will only be used when you are interviewing a person who is not the head of a household. 201
75 OCCUPATION OP HEAD QF HOUSE: In all cases, we want to know exactly (a) what kind of work he does, and (b) for what kind of organisation he works. We do not want to know where he works or the name of his firm or employer. Such information is uselesd to us. But the information as to type of work and type of firm needs to be obtained and recorded as specifically as possible.
If the respondent has a title (such as president, treasurer, etc.) or a job title (suoh as clerk- typist, punch-press operator, etc.), record this information. How ever, it is also important that you determine what kind of organiza tion. Examples of correctly recorded occupations are: '•salesman in a shoe store," "vice-president of a bank," "drill press operator in auto factory," "automechanic in a garage," "Owner of a grocery store." Always distinguish between owners, managers, and employees of various types of store — never say grocer, butcher, etc.
People in certain occupations tend to give general answers which are completely useless to us. Among the occupational categories that give us most trouble in this respeot are:
Banker: (Could be officer, teller, clerk, etc.)
Railroad man: (Could be any one of hundreds of occupations, running from unskilled laborers up to company officials)
Government Worker: (includes even more varied occupations than railroad worker)
Engineer: (Could be locomotive engineer, stationary engineer, civil, chemical, electrical engineer, etc.)
Factory Worker: (Could be laborer, machine operator, foreman, machinist)
Newspaper Man: (Could be editor, laborer, salesman, official)
In all the above cases, and in many similar vague occupational categories, a useless answer can be made useable by adding what kind of work he does - what does he do in the bank, for the rail road, for the government, etc. This information, with any job title he may have, will permit us to classify the respondent. Remember - always find out what kind of work he does (and his title. £f any) and in what kind of a firm.
One further point - if the head of the house is retired or unemployed, record his former occupation ("retired lawyer," "unemployed auto mechanic").
Question A: Be sure you check one of the boxes for each type of program on the list. Also cheok one box for each type of program you write in.
Question B: Be sure the respondent understands that he is only to choose those types of program that he thinks he would watch regularly if they were offered at a convenient time. In recording answers, place an "x" only in those boxes opposite program types the respondent chooses. Leave the other boxes blank. 202
Question C: You will find sone cases in which the last progran type in question "B^ has prompted what you believe to be an answer to this question* Do not nake this assunption* Ask the question exactly as written - even if it seens repetitive*
If the answer to this question is "YES" or "NO", to on to ask the sub-question 'Why do you feel this way?M Get as precise an answer as you can and record this verbatin - exactly as expressed# Be sure, though, that you suggest no answers ’or influence their response in any way*
Question D : If the answer to this question is "YES" ask hin the sub-question concerning the active seeking out of opposing points of view* If the answer is "NOW, go directly to " # * '
Question E » Here again you nay feel the respondent has already answered the question# Ask it - just as written - anyway*
If the answer to this is ••NO", skip to question 12 on the last page* ask the last five questions, get the classification infornation, and go on to the next house* If the answer is "YES", proceed on with the rest of the questionnaire, starting, of course, with question #1.
Question 1# Be sure the respondent understands that you want to know if. he personally heard or saw any of the editorials - not sinply whether or not he heard of then#
Question 2» For your convenience we have listed most of the stations which reach this area. Try to get sone specific response, but be particularly cautious- about cuoing ycur respondent towards a radio or television response# Up to this tine we have said nothing about the source of these editorials and we want to give no hints about this# If the response is sone station you never heard of, sinply record the call-letters and go on#
Question 3 : Record this answer exactly as it is given#
Question U : Urge then to recall exactly how they first heard.the editorials#
Question £ s This nay seen like a difficult question to ask, but it can be nade reasonably sinple if you lead the respondent through each of the possible groups# A possible series of questions would be: "Have you talked with anyone about then?" "Anyone outside your iunediate family?" "Were they relatives?" "Please try to estinate how many close friends you have talked to about this# ###0ne, two, three, five, nore than that?" "Have you talked with any more casual friends about this - like your neighbors or people you work with?" "Again, could you tell us about how many#" "Have you had occasion to talk with any strangers about this?" "How nany?" Try to strike a balance between being too hasty or too apologetic - this question is inportant to us as an indication of how nuch interest in the issues these editorials are stirring up#
Question 6: This question, along with Question 7, nay represent the most difficult part of your interview# In question 6 you sinply ask the respon dent to tell you what he thought the nan was talking about in the editor ials he heard# In nany cases his first answer will be quite general - like "Integration," or "The Legislature#" When this happens, you nust try to probe for nore specific infornation - always being careful not to influence an answer in anyway# (For nore specific instructions on "probing", see page 9 of these instructions)* If the respondent remembers nore than one editorial, get specific infornation about each one# 203 When you get the most specific response you feel you can get, ask the respondent if he agrees with this point of view. It is inportant here that you be very careful to avoid giving any indication of your own views on the issues mentioned. The question MDo you agree with this point of view?" can be road in a great many ways - sone of whioh can be quite re vealing. You nu3t carefully avoid any such partisan inflection. Ask this question in the most natter-of-fact, impartial tone you can muster. This will help you obtain more accurate answers - and also spare you tine wasting ninutes of useless discussion.
Question 7 ? After the respondent has given you all the topics he can renenber, give hin Card nGM and see if this prods loose any new memories• The issues listed on this card are impartially worded. You must probe here for the re spondents vies of the stand taken by the person editorializing * this also must be done for each issue. You must also ask, for every issue.nDo you agree with this point of view?" •
Question 8 : Be sure that the editorial or editorials mentioned here are included in the list obtained in questions 6 and 7, If not, go back and enter the new information.
Question 9 : Probe for a meaningful answer.
Question 10; If the answer to this is HYES;,or,,NOl», probe for a meaningful Fesponse to the sub question, ,!Why do you feel this way?”
Question 1 1 : This question should be asked whether or not the respondent agrees the editorials should be continued. Probe for a meaningful response.
Question 1 2 ? These answers can be topics already discussed or brand new topics. Probe for as many as you can get, but be sure the answers are specific.
Questions 13. lU & 1$: Assure the respondent that these questions are for purposes of classification only. We will make no effort to identify any of the people interviewed*
Question 16: Tell your respondeht that we ask for the telephone number only to enable us to make spot checks on the efficiency of our interviewers. Re assure then that we will make no effort to identify then by name.
When you have completed all the questions, turn back to page one and fill in the classification information. Before going on to the next interview, look over the questionnaire just completed to be sure that all questions that should have been asked were asked and that all answers were legibly recorded. Be sure that the information on sex, race, age, education, occupation, and phone number is properly filled in.
HOT TO HAHDUS IQtlR JOB AS AN INTERS IETJER
Your Preparation
Your first step, of course, is to become completely familiar with the material above. This requires careful study. Unless you understand exactly what you are to do, and how you are to go about it, before you go out to make your first interview, you will not be able to do the kind of interviewing we expect of you. Furthermore, lack of sufficient pcoparation w ill make you interviewing far nore difficult than it need be. If you have any questions at all call Mr. Pennybacker, or go back to his office, and get an answer to your question before you go out to do any interviewing. 204 2* Your Approach
The approach is a very inportant factor in good interviewing* If you develop an effective approach, you will have no difficulty in optain- ing interviews and in establishing the rapport which is essential to gain respondents1 cooperation*
There is no reason tc feel shy about asking a stranger what he thinks* Most people are flattered to bo asked about their opinions* It gives then a sense of inportance to think somebody is actually interested in what they think or what they have to say* You will aL so find that most people are particularly anxious to talk about television progranning in general and the editoiials in particular* Renenber that you are not prying or imposing on the respondent* The opinions expressed and the information provided can result in actual benefits to the respondent through improved television programming* The re sults of this survey will be taked quite seriously by the stations here in town* If you believe in these potential benefits, your manner will show it, and the person you are interviewing will respond to it*
Greet your respondent with a smile and introduce yourself by name* Be natural, friendly, and courteous, but at the sane time be business like* It is also helpful to identify yourself as a student in the Speech Department at L.S.U. Use a brief, simple introduction, such as "I an a student from the Speech Department at L.S.U*- we are conducting a television survey and would like your opinion on a few subjects.*1 Then immediately plunge into the first question*
Tilth the few respondents who are suspicious by nature, it is sometimes advisable to add that you are not sellin anything and that he will not be identified with any answer that he. gives you* In very rare, extreme cases, you can tell the respondent that he is welcome to call the Speech Department and check on your status* Do not try to launch into a long-winded explanation of what you are doing, however* Get into the first question as quickly as possible and attempt to interest the respondent in the subject of the questionnaire* Remember that in no case are you to tell a respon dent that we are conducting a survey of attitudes towards television prog ramming* Some respondents will draw their own conclusions as the interview progresses, but you must neither confirm nor deny these*
Following are a few inportant "don'ts" regarding your approach:
a. Don*t give the impression that you are asking for any favors. You are simply giving persons a chance to express their opinions on things of interest and importance*
b. Don’t ask respondents for permission to interview then, as "May I ask you a few questions?" or "Would you like to give your opinion?", etc* This suggests the possibility of refusal, which is needless*
c. Don't be lofty or domineering, or shy or condescending* A natural, positive, tactful and intelligent manner carries nore weight, makes a better impression*
d* Do not let the respondent get the impression that the interview is in any way a test of his knowledge or intell igence. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer* His 205 answers and opinions arc as valuable as anyone else's.
3. Conducting' the Interview
Maintain a friendly yet businesslike attitude throughout the entire interview asking each question in the exact wording and in the exact order as it appears on the questi'-nnaire.
If you have any criticisn of our question wording or sequence, tell us about it, but don’t change anything in your interviewing. Even if you believe sone other wording is preferable, it is essential that the sane Wording be used by all interviewers. If you alter a wording in one way, and other interviewers alter it in still other ways, each interviewer1s wording might have a slightly differect moaning, and the work of various interviewers would not bo comparable. This would die tort our results and m k e then mean ingless.
In addition, the following rules chauld he observed in all your interviewing:
a. Never influence your res'pendents. ho matter how strongly you agree or disagree with anything your respondents say, you nust never show your agreenent or disagreement. Never let your tone of voice or manner betray your own feelings, and never explain your own views — even at the end of an interview. Your job is to gather information, not to conduct a conversation. By the sane token, never help a respondent by suggesting words, even if he has trouble expressing himself. Vie want to know what he has to say, in his own words, without any help or prompting from you, no matter how inarticulate he nay be.
b. Never explain the meaning of a question. If a respondent does not understand a question, repeat it carefully exactly as written. If he still does not understand it, sinply record his answer as "no opinion".
c. Talk to the respondent alone. Try to avoid having a third person present at the interview. He is apt to "horn in" with his own ideas, and thus influence the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent himself is apt to be less frank, and to give answers which he thinks will impress the third person.- Or he night turn to the third person for assistance. /ill of these possibilities could spoil an interview.
d. .ulways interview face-to-face. Address the respondent directly through out the interview and hold your questionnaire so that he cannot see it. If he looks over your, shoulder, he is apt to jump ahead and read quest ions out of their proper order. It. also sometimes makes respondents self-conscious to see what you are writing down, and this can encourage them to change their answers*
e. Keep control of the interview. Yio have found that many people love to ramble on about the two subjects covered in the survey. This distracts them from the interview and'will also waste a lot of your time. ’Then a respondent begins to ramble, break in as soon as you can do so pol itely and say "That's very interesting, but now I would like your opinion on this question." Than ask the next question (or repeat the previous question if he has not yet answered it fully). Often a subfect will start to give you infornation which you will be able to use further along in the interview. '.Then this happens tell her politely that you will be getting to that subject in a minute or two, but "right now, I would like to know . • •" and then go on with 206 the question at hand* f. Write or print clearly* Where written-out answers are required, use the nost legible penmanship at your cor.ii.and* These answers have to be analyzed by the thousands, and rapid scribbles makes our job that nuch harder* In checking answer boxes, it is nuch better to nark an (X) in stead of a checkmark* The checkmark is often confusing because it nay extend into the next answer box* g. Record answers verbatin0 llany of the questions on the questionnaire are of the open end or 11 free answer”type* In these, instead of narking a box, you are to write in exactly what the respondent says, word for word* Do not paraphrase or change answers into your own wording* Never use the third person in recording answers. Include slang, bad grammar and colorful language* This m y not seen too inportant at first glance, but it is* h* Probe for complete and detailed answers* The technique called "probing” is used in connection with the open-end, verbatin-response type of question discussed above* Probing consists of drawing out a respondent so that he will give you as complete, detailed answers as he possibly can* The purpose of probing is to get at specifics* It is a key part of your fuction to get everyone to be as concrete and specific as possible* Ans wers like: "He's doing a good job," or "I think I may have read about it in the paper," or "It just doesn't seen right” are too vague to be really useful*
Probing Rule I* Lead respondent from the general to the specific.
Probe by asking: "In what ways do you think he's doing a good job?". "Now are you sure you read about this in the paper?"j "VJhat is there about it that doesn't seen right to you?"; etc* Another method is to say something like, "That's interesting* Now I'd like to have you go on and tell ne any other reasons (feelings) you nay have on this*”
Use your imagination in devising probes that fit the question and that will draw out any additional thoughts the respondent may have on the subject*
Probing Rule II* Say nothing that could steer the respondents think- . ing in any given direction*
This requires considerable care. You are trying to get the res pondent to be specific, but you, yourself, have to be objective and state your probes in somewhat general terns*
Examples of "objective probes" are: "Could you go into that a bit more?" "That's very interesting* Could you let me have nore details of your thinking on that?" "Yes, and * * .” (followed by a significant pause) "In what specific ways do you think the editorials are weak?"’
Never suggest answers by saying, "Do you mean they are weak be cause of so-and-so?"
Probing Rule III, nsk the next logical question - the question that "begs to be asked*1* 207
To put it another way: Analyze the respondents statenent to see if you think his answer could be nore specific. Then ask a question to get at these specifics.
Probing Rule IV. Probe until you are honestly satisified that the respondent has gone as deeply into the subject as he canl
i. Exclusion or "filter" questions. It is inportant that you understand and follow the "guide-lines" in determining whether or not you should ask certain questions on the questionnaire. By Mguide-linesM we mean lines of type proceeding certain questions which read "IF YES OR NO, ASK:," etc. They are your "Guide"in deciding whether or not you should ask the question that follows.
j. Interview people who claim to know nothing about the sub.lect as care fully as you do people who are informed. Do not neglect or avoid people who are uninformed on, or have no opinions about, the questions you are asking. When you run into such people by following your sample plan, remember that they are just as inportant to the survey as people who are well informed. Part of your job is to find out how many people have no opinion or no knowledge on given questions*
k. Check your questoinnaire for completeness before leaving the respondent. At the end of the interview, go back over your questionnaire and make sure you have answers to every pertinent question, and that all the re quired information is recorded. Make certain that you have checked everyanswer box that should be checked. Immediately after leaving the re spondent, make sure that all answers you have written are clear, legible and complete. Do not leave half-finished sentences that you intend to complete later. A minute or two spent at this time will save us considerable time later on, and will avoid our having to discard question naires because they are incomplete.
1. Always be tactful. People who give their time for an interview are en titled to courteous and tactful treatment. Try to leave the respondent with the impression that he has taked part in an interesting and worth while activity. Excuse yourself rapidly, but politely, and go on to your next interview.
We believe you will find this assignment interesting IF you have become thououghly familiar with the questionnaire BEFORE you conduct your first interview. Remember that this is a survey of attitudes towards television programming in this community*
We are depending on you to complete this assignment as rapidly and as careftilly as you possible can. When you finish this assignment you can, if you wish, ask for another assignment. This will, of course, increase your chances of earning one of the cash bonuses mentioned on page 2. Whether you take one assignment or six, though, we know you can do an excellent job on this survey* 208
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
The envelope you have should contain the following items • Check over this carefully before you leave the office:
1, A ten-page booklet of instructions for interviewers
* 2. Questionnaires numbered fron ______to ______
3• A street nap of Baton Rouge with an area narked in red
U. A set of four cards to be used for interviewing
Before you begin interviewing, read the instruction booklet carefully and be sure you understand exactly what you are to do before trying your first interview* If there is anything you don*t understand, call Mr. Penny- backer, or return to his office, and get an explanation before you begin
To complete this assignment you are to interview MEN WOMEN.
The assignment is not complete until you have interviewed this number of respondents all of whom are 19 or older.
From your nap, you will see that you are to proceed to the intersection of ______. and ______streets. Face north on
______and proceed around the block in a clock-wise direction
(North, then East, then South, then TTest)• You will start, then, with houses on the East side of ______street. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Public Documents
U.S. Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of the Mayflower Corporation. Docket #5618, FCC Reports, 8, (March 1, 1940 - August 1, 1941).
______. In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees. Docket No. 8516 (FCC release 49-769, m i m .). June 1, 1949.
U.S. Federal Radio Commission. In re Great Lakes Broadcasting C o . Third Annual Report, 1929.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Network Broadcasting. Report No. 1297, 85th Con gress, 2d Session, 1958.
U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. XLVII.
Books
Baton Rouge; Its Dynamic Economy. Baton Rouge: The Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce, 1959.
Becker, Carl L. Freedom and Responsibility in the American Wav of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945.
Commission on Freedom of the Press. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1955.
Emery, Walter B. Broadcasting and Government. Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1961.
Head, Sydney W. Broadcasting in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956.
Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven: By the author, 1957.
Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of Mass Communication. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. 209 210
Shramm, Wilbur, Responsibility in Mass Communication. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.
Siebert, Fred S., Peterson, Theodore, and Shramm, Wilbur. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956.
Smead, Elmer E. Freedom of Speech by Radio and Television. Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1959.
Swindler, William F. Problems of Law in Journalism. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.
Tate, Merle W. Statistics in Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.
The World Almanac and Book of Facts. New York: New York World Telegram and the Sun, 1961.
Articles and Periodicals
The Baton Rouge Television Audience. Washington: The American Research Bureau, (March, 1961).
"Editorializing is a Moral Obligation - Minow," Broadcasting. LXII (March 5, 1962).
"His Broadcast Editorials go to the Heart of any Issue," Broadcasting. LX (February 13, 1961).
Jensen, Jay W. "Towards a Solution of the Problem of Freedom of the Press," Journalism Quarterly. XXVII (Fall, 1950), 400 -408.
The Morning Advocate. (Baton Rouge) 1959 - 1961.
New York Times. 1954 - 1959.
Unpublished Material
Cusack, Mary Ann. "Editorializing in Broadcasting." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Speech, Wayne State University, 1960.
Manship, Douglas L. "Government in the Dark," Broadcast editorials delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 1, 1960.
. "The Legislature," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 10, 1960.
______. "Emotion, Reason, and the School Crisis," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 13, I960. 211
"The Great Tragedy," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 14, 1960.
"Civilization and Political Action," Broadcast editorial deliv ered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 9, 1960.
'We Need to Know . . .," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 12, I960.
"The Legislature, the University, and the Professor," Broad cast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 13, 1960.
"Louisiana Witch Hunt," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 17, 1960.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 21, 1960.
"The Greatest Tragedy," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 5, 1961.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 7, 1961.
"Moral Indifference," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 13, 1961.
"Setting the Record Straight," Broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 17, 1961.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 3, 1961.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 10, 1961.
_. Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 16, 1961.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 17, 1961.
Untitled broadcast editorial delivered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 20, 1961.
Other Sources
WBRZ-TV. Personal interview With Douglas Manship, President and General Manager, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 27, 1962. AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, John H? Pennybacker, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
I received my secondary-school education in the public schools of
Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania, and my undergraduate training at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the University of Pennsylvania.
The latter institution granted me the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951.
From Temple University in Philadelphia, I received the Master of Arts degree in 1957. In September, 1958, I was granted an assistantship by the Department of Speech of The Ohio State University, where I
specialized in Radio and Television. I held this position for two years while completing some of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree. In September of 1960 I joined the staff of the
Department of Speech of Louisiana State University as an Instructor
in the Radio and Television area. While serving in this capacity I
completed my doctoral dissertation.
212